NationStates Jolt Archive

Newsweek has published this excellent article: Our Mutual Joy--Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1)

The article is too lengthy to quote in full (although it is only 3 pages and I encourage you to read it), so here are some excerpts:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

....

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.

...

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

...

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.

...

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.

...

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

Now, I have to admit in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what the Bible says about same-sex marriage. It should be legal regardless. But I found the article interesting and persuasive, nonetheless.

What say you NSG?

"God is love," so homosexual love is God, and outlawing gay marriage is like prohibiting God himself.

Or we can, like, not put so much stock in ancient collections of stories.

what does religion have to do with marriage? also tbqh I don't care, if your going to push for equality then you can sort out homophobic bullying and the such

''Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.''

I think brotherly love is nm of an arguement, because its hardly homosexual. Othr than this, i personally believe that as they love each other nothing matters.

what does religion have to do with marriage? also tbqh I don't care, if your going to push for equality then you can sort out homophobic bullying and the such

From a psychological layman's (read: my own) uninformed perspective, I think that most of the male-sourced homophobia comes from insecurity that all men suffer from in regards to the nature of (or the perception of) their sexual identity. It's closely related to 'dick-fear', if you're familiar to the concept.

That only works on an interpretation of the Bible that abstracts from how its teachings, and the broader religious teachings of which it is a part, have traditionally been interpreted and applied.

For traditional Jews and Catholics, at least, that isn't really an option.

That only works on an interpretation of the Bible that abstracts from how its teachings, and the broader religious teachings of which it is a part, have traditionally been interpreted and applied.

For traditional Jews and Catholics, at least, that isn't really an option.

That may explain why "traditional Jews and Catholics" can reject the "universal truths" argument made later in the article, but how do they respond to the correct assertions made in the first part of the article that what the literal Bible tells us is of little help concerning modern marriage and/or directly contradicts the views of traditional Jews and Catholics?

Perhaps someone from that perspective will pipe up. (Though I admit it will take a brave soul.)

Just a small point in the thread,the op takes a passage from a King James bible transl.If this is King James the First of England and Sixth of Scots then He can talk,cos He was one of the most rampant homosexuals in known history

If we accept the bible, then we must accept rape as a good thing (if the "victim" doesn't find out). Right, Mary?

and/or directly contradicts the views of traditional Jews and Catholics?

How so?

Nothing in the Bible says, "Make a family like Abraham's." And there's plenty in the Bible that suggests that making a family like, say, King David's is a really bad idea.

I wish people would quit making laws reflecting religious prejudice. If you believe your god is against same sex marraige, don't get one. Let everyone else live by their own philosophical beliefs.

what does religion have to do with marriage? also tbqh I don't care, if your going to push for equality then you can sort out homophobic bullying and the such
I have to say when someone at debating last week ("This house believes gay rights have been fully achieved") described marriage as a religious institution (in order to demonstrate that gay rights have been achieved as to have gay marriage infringes religious freedom :rolleyes:) I nearly got a stomach ulcer.

I told Jesus that a good friend of mine from high school was gay and planned to marry another man. He said, "Get em one of those AeroGardens. They're pretty cool."

*nod*

''Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.''

I think brotherly love is nm of an arguement, because its hardly homosexual. Othr than this, i personally believe that as they love each other nothing matters.

Yeah, that looks to me more like an early "bros before hos" than a suggestion of a homosexual relationship.

I told Jesus that a good friend of mine from high school was gay and planned to marry another man. He said, "Get em one of those AeroGardens. They're pretty cool."

*nod*

How sure are you that you got the right guy? According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_claimants), over two dozen people claimed to be the messiah. Therefore, Jesus is Spartacus. *nodnod*

Yeah, that looks to me more like an early "bros before hos" than a suggestion of a homosexual relationship.

Except that - if you have read the whole text, that enduring love is in the context of two men who console one another with kisses that cause 'swelling'.

Just a small point in the thread,the op takes a passage from a King James bible transl.If this is King James the First of England and Sixth of Scots then He can talk,cos He was one of the most rampant homosexuals in known history

I hope I'll be forgiven for briefly going slightly off-topic, but you seem to have some strange ideas about the King James/Authorised Version and James I & VI himself.

First of all, while James initiated the translation now named after him, and the translation is dedicated to him (in fairly flowery language), the translation was compiled by a series of committees rather than the King himself.

As to the King's sexuality, referring to him as 'one of the most rampant homosexuals in known history' is laughable. The reality is far more complex. He had a history of close male relationships, and there's been much speculation that these may have included a homosexual element; this is impossible to prove, but the evidence suggests that he had a particularly intense relationship with at least the 1st Duke of Lennox that included some sort of physical aspect. However, he also fathered eight children on his Queen, Anne of Denmark, is believed to have had at least one female mistress, and in his book the Basilikon Doron wrote that sodomy was one of " the horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive".

The balance of evidence suggests a guilt-ridden bisexual rather than "one of the most rampant homosexuals in known history".

Perhaps you had him confused with Edward II? Now there was a queer King; and a Queer one, too.

Now, I have to admit in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what the Bible says about same-sex marriage.

I don't care what it has to say about anything. That's even more intellectually honest.

Excuse my lack of knowledge about the matter, but I have some questions.

If same-sex marriage were legalized in the US, would that mean that a church would be obligated under the law to marry any same-sex couple?

What's the difference between civil unions and actual marriage? Is there an actual difference in terms of rights and responsibilities or is it merely symbolic?

How sure are you that you got the right guy? According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_claimants), over two dozen people claimed to be the messiah. Therefore, Jesus is Spartacus. *nodnod*

He hangs out with a prostitute a lot. I'm pretty sure it's Him. ;)

Excuse my lack of knowledge about the matter, but I have some questions.

If same-sex marriage were legalized in the US, would that mean that a church would be obligated under the law to marry any same-sex couple?

no



What's the difference between civil unions and actual marriage? Is there an actual difference in terms of rights and responsibilities or is it merely symbolic?

civil union has been made up to mask its really being marriage. as such, in some places its identical, in some places it isnt.

no

Then I don't get what the big deal is. If some religious figures are against same-sex marriages, then they don't have to wed them.

I have nothing against the religious points of view on the matter, but I don't understand why a secular government would be opposed to same-sex marriage.

Then I don't get what the big deal is. If some religious figures are against same-sex marriages, then they don't have to wed them.

I have nothing against the religious points of view on the matter, but I don't understand why a secular government would be opposed to same-sex marriage.

The government wants to appear that it is listening to the people, even if the people often want to rescind the rights of others. The government is also typically made up of elected officials who may share the same religious views as their constituents and will work to impose those views, even if there are many who wouldn't agree with those views.

Then I don't get what the big deal is. If some religious figures are against same-sex marriages, then they don't have to wed them.

I have nothing against the religious points of view on the matter, but I don't understand why a secular government would be opposed to same-sex marriage.
its a matter of getting used to the idea.

its more religion being used as a reason to dislike something they are prejudiced against. after all, there is no need in the US for anyone to be married in a church so religion really doesnt come into it.

Except that - if you have read the whole text, that enduring love is in the context of two men who console one another with kisses that cause 'swelling'.

It seems to me (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) that you're subjecting the text to a rather strained interpretation here, and I'm not sure what reason there is to do so, aside from the undeniable fun that comes from poking the literalists.

It seems to me (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) that you're subjecting the text to a rather strained interpretation here, and I'm not sure what reason there is to do so, aside from the undeniable fun that comes from poking the literalists.

The 'reason' would be that - if you're going to be faithful to the text, you should at least try to be faithful to what it actually says.

It's not a 'strained' interpretation - it's the only honest one.

Excuse my lack of knowledge about the matter, but I have some questions.

If same-sex marriage were legalized in the US, would that mean that a church would be obligated under the law to marry any same-sex couple?

What's the difference between civil unions and actual marriage? Is there an actual difference in terms of rights and responsibilities or is it merely symbolic?

1) no it would not, the first amendment would preclude that

2) mostly merely symbolic, but depends on who you talk to, some people dislike the idea of a "separate category" and feel that even if in practice it would be the same, that the mere fact that calling it different would still be discrimination. Others feel that as long as the rights, essentially, were the same, the name doesn't matter.

2) mostly merely symbolic, but depends on who you talk to, some people dislike the idea of a "separate category" and feel that even if in practice it would be the same, that the mere fact that calling it different would still be discrimination. Others feel that as long as the rights, essentially, were the same, the name doesn't matter.
Others like it precisely because it isn't the same, and leaves open the possibility of nibbling away some of the rights, or of repealing it altogether whenever the majority can be persuaded. Having a separate category also interferes with portability of the rights, if the couple moves somewhere else.

Except that - if you have read the whole text, that enduring love is in the context of two men who console one another with kisses that cause 'swelling'.

I don't recall the "swelling" reference (do you have a citation?), but male kissing has a sexual connotation only in some cultures (like ours.)

The government wants to appear that it is listening to the people, even if the people often want to rescind the rights of others. The government is also typically made up of elected officials who may share the same religious views as their constituents and will work to impose those views, even if there are many who wouldn't agree with those views.

That's pretty much it.

I don't care what it has to say about anything. That's even more intellectually honest.

This.

I don't care what it has to say about anything. That's even more intellectually honest.

I don't know, I hear they're got some great serving suggestions for manna in there.

I don't know, I hear they're got some great serving suggestions for manna in there.

Eh, I don't know. I prefer the popular occult's version of manna. Throwing fireballs beats sweet wafers any day of the week.

What's the difference between civil unions and actual marriage? Is there an actual difference in terms of rights and responsibilities or is it merely symbolic?

The rights and responsibilities are not necessarily the same -- depends on the jurisdiction, but federally they are different -- but there is an important distinction regardless.

Although I don't want to turn what was supposed to be a religious topic into a legal one, I can't help but share the following quotes. I apologize in advance. :wink:

From the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases:
As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and potected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.

As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

...

We need not decide in this case whether the name “marriage” is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state could violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples. Under the current statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.
...

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are constitutional.

Also, from the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan:

The plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s conclusion
that the distinction between marriage and civil unions
is merely one of nomenclature. They contend that marriage
is not simply a term denominating a bundle of
legal rights. Rather, they contend that it is an institution
of unique and enduring importance in our society, one
that carries with it a special status. The plaintiffs therefore
contend that their claim of unequal treatment cannot
be dismissed solely because same sex couples who
enter into a civil union enjoy the same rights under
state law as married couples. The plaintiffs also claim
that we must consider the legislature’s decision to create
civil unions for same sex couples in the context of
the historical condemnation and discrimination that gay
persons have suffered. We agree with the plaintiffs
that, despite the legislature’s recent establishment of
civil unions, the restriction of marriage to opposite sex
couples implicates the constitutional rights of gay persons
who wish to marry a person of the same sex.

A cognizable constitutional claim arises whenever
the government singles out a group for differential treatment.
The legislature has subjected gay persons to precisely
that kind of differential treatment by creating a
separate legal classification for same sex couples who,
like opposite sex couples, wish to have their relationship
recognized under the law. Put differently, the civil
union law entitles same sex couples to all of the same
rights as married couples except one, that is, the freedom
to marry, a right that ‘‘has long been recognized
as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men [and women]’’ and
‘‘fundamental to our very existence and survival.’’ Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed.
2d 1010 (1967). Indeed, marriage has been characterized
as ‘‘intimate to the degree of being sacred’’; Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L.
Ed. 2d 510 (1965); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 96, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987) (‘‘many
religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance’’);
and ‘‘an institution more basic in our civilization
than any other.’’ Williams v. North Carolina, 317
U.S. 287, 303, 63 S. Ct. 207, 87 L. Ed. 279 (1942). Marriage,
therefore, is not merely shorthand for a discrete set of
legal rights and responsibilities but is ‘‘one of the most
fundamental of human relationships . . . .’’ Davis v.
Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 203, 175 A. 574 (1934). ‘‘Marriage
. . . bestows enormous private and social advantages
on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once
a deeply personal commitment to another human being
and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality,
companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. . . .
Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven,
and connection that express our common humanity,
civil marriage is an esteemed institution . . . .’’ (Citation
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Goodridge
v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 322, 798
N.E.2d 941 (2003).

Especially in light of the long and undisputed history
of invidious discrimination that gay persons have suffered;
see part V A of this opinion; we cannot discount
the plaintiffs’ assertion that the legislature, in establishing
a statutory scheme consigning same sex couples to
civil unions, has relegated them to an inferior status,
in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution
of marriage. In other words, ‘‘[b]y excluding samesex
couples from civil marriage, the [s]tate declares
that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments
and the commitments of heterosexual couples.
Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex
couples have is not as important or as significant as
‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot
have the name of marriage.’’ Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J.
415, 467, 908 A.2d 196 (2006) (Poritz, C. J., concurring
and dissenting); see also In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.
4th 757, 830–31, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (2008)
(‘‘[t]he current statutes—by drawing a distinction
between the name assigned to the family relationship
available to opposite-sex couples and the name
assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex
couples, and by reserving the historic and highly
respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-
sex couples while offering same-sex couples only
the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership—
pose a serious risk of denying the official family
relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and
respect that is a core element of the constitutional right
to marry’’); Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 1207, 802 N.E.2d 565 (2004) (‘‘[t]he dissimilitude
between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’
is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language
that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex,
largely homosexual, couples to second-class status’’).
Although the legislature has determined that same sex
couples are entitled to ‘‘all the same benefits, protections
and responsibilities . . . [that] are granted to
spouses in a marriage’’; General Statutes § 46b-38nn;
the legislature nonetheless created an entirely separate
and distinct legal entity for same sex couples even
though it readily could have made those same rights
available to same sex couples by permitting them to
marry. In view of the exalted status of marriage in
our society, it is hardly surprising that civil unions are
perceived to be inferior to marriage. We therefore agree
with the plaintiffs that ‘‘[m]aintaining a second-class
citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them
from the institution of civil marriage is the constitutional
infirmity at issue.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Opinions
of the Justices to the Senate, supra, 1209.

Accordingly, we reject the trial court’s conclusion
that marriage and civil unions are ‘‘separate’’ but ‘‘equal’’
legal entities; Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public
Health, supra, 49 Conn. Sup. 664; and that it therefore
‘‘would be the elevation of form over substance’’; id.,
667; to conclude that the constitutional rights of same
sex couples are implicated by a statutory scheme that
restricts them to civil unions. Although marriage and
civil unions do embody the same legal rights under
our law, they are by no means ‘‘equal.’’ As we have
explained, the former is an institution of transcendent
historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the
latter most surely is not. Even though the classifications
created under our statutory scheme result in a type of
differential treatment that generally may be characterized
as symbolic or intangible, this court correctly has
stated that such treatment nevertheless ‘‘is every bit as
restrictive as naked exclusions’’; Evening Sentinel v.
National Organization for Women, 168 Conn. 26, 35,
357 A.2d 498 (1975); because it is no less real than more
tangible forms of discrimination, at least when, as in
the present case, the statute singles out a group that
historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance,
ridicule or worse.

We do not doubt that the civil union law was designed
to benefit same sex couples by providing them with
legal rights that they previously did not have. If, however,
the intended effect of a law is to treat politically
unpopular or historically disfavored minorities differently
from persons in the majority or favored class,
that law cannot evade constitutional review under the
separate but equal doctrine. See, e.g., Brown v. Board
of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed.
873 (1954); cf. In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4th
830–31; Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, supra,
440 Mass. 1209. In such circumstances, the very existence
of the classification gives credence to the perception
that separate treatment is warranted for the same
illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination
in the first place. Despite the truly laudable effort
of the legislature in equalizing the legal rights afforded
same sex and opposite sex couples, there is no doubt
that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society
than marriage. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs
have alleged a constitutionally cognizable injury,
that is, the denial of the right to marry a same sex
partner.

The government wants to appear that it is listening to the people, even if the people often want to rescind the rights of others. The government is also typically made up of elected officials who may share the same religious views as their constituents and will work to impose those views, even if there are many who wouldn't agree with those views.

A less delicate way of putting this: there are bigots and some of them have power or are pandered to by those in power.

Eh, I don't know. I prefer the popular occult's version of manna. Throwing fireballs beats sweet wafers any day of the week.

I think the fireball one is mana.

I don't recall the "swelling" reference (do you have a citation?), but male kissing has a sexual connotation only in some cultures (like ours.)
In the book of Samuel, it is abundantly clear that physical affection is meant. There is not a single passage in which the relationship comes up without an emphasis on the physicality of it: when they first meet, "Jonathan's loins yearned for David"; when they get together in private, Jonathan takes off everything for David and "gives him his all" (the Bible is explicit that this means the loincloth came off too); when Saul berates Jonathan over the relationship, he uses an odd phrase, "you have chosen David to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", which might be interpreted various ways but is hard to give a non-sexual meaning to; Jonathan arranges to send a signal if David is in danger so David can get away without having to venture back to the palace, but then David comes back to the palace anyway, for one more hug; and then there is the death scene and David's lament that "thy love was far better than the love of women." Other than veering off into soft porn, I don't know how the Bible could have been plainer.

Now, I'm not usually the type to bring up slippery slopes, but saying "Although gay marriage is acceptable they can simply refuse to grant it!" sounds suspiciously like the south's treatment of black voters after the civil war...

That may explain why "traditional Jews and Catholics" can reject the "universal truths" argument made later in the article, but how do they respond to the correct assertions made in the first part of the article that what the literal Bible tells us is of little help concerning modern marriage and/or directly contradicts the views of traditional Jews and Catholics?

Because traditional Jews and Catholics don't treat the Bible as literally true? The Newsweek writer's interpretation is well-supported, but it remains an interpretation, one that would really only work with fundamentalists who not only take the Bible as literal, but treat every mention of a something as an endorsement of it.
There are plenty of Christian arguments for same-sex marriage, just as many as there are against it. But simply saying "the Bible mentions homosexuality" is a pretty weak one. The author of the article does make a good point about the shifting idea of "traditional marriage;" a stronger rebuttal against opponents who cite it.

when they first meet, "Jonathan's loins yearned for David";

Really?

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Samuel 18:1)

Did I miss an earlier verse? Certainly there's no mention of "loins" there.

when they get together in private, Jonathan takes off everything for David and "gives him his all" (the Bible is explicit that this means the loincloth came off too);

No explicit mention of "privacy" in the Biblical text: they make a covenant and Jonathan gives David his stuff. But considering that among these items are Jonathan's sword and bow, I don't think this is a euphemistic reference to a sexual encounter, but instead is an indicator of Jonathan's efforts to aid David. (Is there another place in the Bible where sex is referred to in this way? The sexual euphemisms in the Bible tend to stem from the verbs "to lie" or "to know", neither of which is present in the text here.)

when Saul berates Jonathan over the relationship, he uses an odd phrase, "you have chosen David to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", which might be interpreted various ways but is hard to give a non-sexual meaning to;

Saul goes on to explain exactly what he means:

"For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the earth, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he deserveth to die.'" (1 Samuel 20:31)

He's referring to Jonathan's inheritance, which Jonathan has by virtue of "his mother's nakedness" (which is to say, the sexual relations of his mother with Saul that conceived him.)

Jonathan arranges to send a signal if David is in danger so David can get away without having to venture back to the palace, but then David comes back to the palace anyway, for one more hug;

My straight male friends hug me sometimes; it doesn't mean that they want to have sex with me. And intense male friendships expressed in affectionate language and behavior are the historical norm.

and then there is the death scene and David's lament that "thy love was far better than the love of women."

Ambiguous at best. You could just as easily understand this passage as referring to David's preference for masculine friendships over the sexual pursuit of women, which makes perfect sense in a male-dominated warrior culture. Or you could interpret it as simply a passionate declaration of love for a dear friend.

Other than veering off into soft porn, I don't know how the Bible could have been plainer.

Well, it could have actually used one of the typical Biblical euphemisms for sex, instead of resorting to rather ambiguous language that can be easily (and probably rightly) interpreted otherwise.

But it didn't.

Because traditional Jews and Catholics don't treat the Bible as literally true? The Newsweek writer's interpretation is well-supported, but it remains an interpretation, one that would really only work with fundamentalists who not only take the Bible as literal, but treat every mention of a something as an endorsement of it.
There are plenty of Christian arguments for same-sex marriage, just as many as there are against it. But simply saying "the Bible mentions homosexuality" is a pretty weak one. The author of the article does make a good point about the shifting idea of "traditional marriage;" a stronger rebuttal against opponents who cite it.

I am curious as to on what the Christian arguments against same-sex marriage are based. Other than those that are non-Biblical, what are they other than "the Bible mentions ...."?

I don't recall the "swelling" reference (do you have a citation?), but male kissing has a sexual connotation only in some cultures (like ours.)

First Samuel 20:41 "...and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."

The word translated as 'exceeded' (gadal) means "to make great", "to magnify" or "to do great things".

Given the context, there is no other realistic interpretation, but that the 'magnification' taking place was of an amorous nature. There is no other reference to doing great things in the context - indeed, David is being sent away in shame.

*snip*

I don't really have an opinion on the "were Jonathon and David homosexual lovers" question, but I think the point remains that the Bible celebrates "love" beyond that of love between a single man and a single woman. Thus comes the question as to why society should limit love where the Bible doesn't.*


*Of course, this assumes one thinks the Bible is relevant to what anyone -- let alone society -- should or should not do.

I am curious as to on what the Christian arguments against same-sex marriage are based. Other than those that are non-Biblical, what are they other than "the Bible mentions ...."?
Maybe "the Bible tells us...?" I don't know; it's not something I'm too gung-ho about, but there is a difference between things in the Bible we can take as commands as things we can take as just recounting stories. The Bible mentions tempting a woman with forbidden fruit, leading to the Fall of Man. It's clearly not how we're supposed to act, though.
Of course, this brings up the interesting question why many of the commands we ("we" here meaning not just society as a whole but most Christians and plenty of Jews) no longer follow, while the ban on homosexuality is still apparently going.

That article has spawned a huge debate between several of my real-life friends in the past several days. It was quite good, and made several points with which I agree, even if it pissed off my born-again friend. :tongue:

Maybe "the Bible tells us...?" I don't know; it's not something I'm too gung-ho about, but there is a difference between things in the Bible we can take as commands as things we can take as just recounting stories. The Bible mentions tempting a woman with forbidden fruit, leading to the Fall of Man. It's clearly not how we're supposed to act, though.
Of course, this brings up the interesting question why many of the commands we ("we" here meaning not just society as a whole but most Christians and plenty of Jews) no longer follow, while the ban on homosexuality is still apparently going.

Where does "the Bible tell us" that marriage is to be restricted to one man and one woman?

Given the context, there is no other realistic interpretation, but that the 'magnification' taking place was of an amorous nature.

Or just a reference to the extremity of the emotions being felt. That's the interpretation I'd lean to in the context of the rest, which is more passionate than sexual: bowing, kissing, weeping.

There is no other reference to doing great things in the context

The verb, as the correct translation you provided indicates, is passive, not active: "higdil", "greatened" or "was enlarged." So no one is doing "great things" anyway.

Where does "the Bible tell us" that marriage is to be restricted to one man and one woman?

In Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
Now, this is the same book of the Bible that sets the laws of kosher and how to purify lepers. Any Christian, at least, who uses this exact verse as a reason to oppose gay marriage is doing some selective quoting.

Most likely it came from "Go forth and multiply!", only to get blown out of proportion by several magnitudes.

The sexual euphemisms in the Bible tend to stem from the verbs "to lie" or "to know", neither of which is present in the text here.)


Those are far from the only Biblical euphemisms for sex. The entire Song of Solomon brims over with sexual euphemisms, of a most poetic nature.


He's referring to Jonathan's inheritance, which Jonathan has by virtue of "his mother's nakedness" (which is to say, the sexual relations of his mother with Saul that conceived him.)


Not only does it not say any of that, but "the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" doesn't work in that context. It refers back to the sexual sins - where the mother's nakedness is considered the father's nakedness (where 'nakedness' means more than just being uncovered)... so for Saul to specifically say that Johnathan is 'confusing' his mother's nakedness is to make a specific point about sexuality, and - more specifically - confused gender roles.

I don't really have an opinion on the "were Jonathon and David homosexual lovers" question, but I think the point remains that the Bible celebrates "love" beyond that of love between a single man and a single woman. Thus comes the question as to why society should limit love where the Bible doesn't.*

Come on, you're being disingenuous.

Does anyone object to strong, loving male friendships? Not to my knowledge. What people object to is sexual relations between people of the same sex.

If marriage were a legal status attached to people who held one another in mutual affection, this argument might work. But it is not: it is a legal status attached to people in romantic, sexual relationships.

This argument might work better if it were attached to Genesis 2:18 rather than David and Jonathan. There God suggests that the fundamental purpose of the union between man and woman is not procreation at all, but companionship and aid: ends a same-sex relationship, and a same-sex marriage, can fulfill perfectly well.

*Of course, this assumes one thinks the Bible is relevant to what anyone -- let alone society -- should or should not do.

Right. And as far as I am concerned it is not.

Or just a reference to the extremity of the emotions being felt. That's the interpretation I'd lean to in the context of the rest, which is more passionate than sexual: bowing, kissing, weeping.


But that doesn't make any sense - he offers consolation, followed by a little comedown speech - so clearly David goes from more upset to less, not the other way around.

If there are strong passions, they are not sadness.


The verb, as the correct translation you provided indicates, is passive, not active: "higdil", "greatened" or "was enlarged." So no one is doing "great things" anyway.

Right - it was the context I'm trying to focus on, and there's no contextual fashion in which the 'greatness' is something being 'done'. David 'becomes' great, from kissing on Johnathan. It seems fairly obvious what that means.

Come on, you're being disingenuous.

Does anyone object to strong, loving male friendships? Not to my knowledge. What people object to is sexual relations between people of the same sex.

If marriage were a legal status attached to people who held one another in mutual affection, this argument might work. But it is not: it is a legal status attached to people in romantic, sexual relationships.


No, it's not disingenuous - the same arguments are made for opposing gay marriage as for allowing homosexual couples to adopt. And adoption carries no intrinsic implication of carnal knowledge between adoptive parents.

It is the relationship being opposed as well as the sexual relation.

Those are far from the only Biblical euphemisms for sex. The entire Song of Solomon brims over with sexual euphemisms, of a most poetic nature.

The Song of Solomon is love poetry, not narrative.

Not only does it not say any of that, but "the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" doesn't work in that context.

I don't know where either of you are getting "confusion."

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: 'Thou son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?" (1 Samuel 20:30)

Maybe you're using a different translation--care to provide it? (And maybe explain how, on that interpretation, Jonathan is "confusing" himself, and how such "confusion" relates to the inheritance that Saul mentions in the next verse?)

It refers back to the sexual sins - where the mother's nakedness is considered the father's nakedness (where 'nakedness' means more than just being uncovered)...

The only connection to the "sexual sins" is the common usage of "nakedness" to reference sexuality.

so for Saul to specifically say that Johnathan is 'confusing' his mother's nakedness is to make a specific point about sexuality, and - more specifically - confused gender roles.

Again: what does this have to do with inheritance, which is, after all, the reason Saul is antagonistic toward David, and also why he thinks Jonathan should be? Furthermore, if Jonathan and David are transgressing gender roles, why is their relationship otherwise taken as a matter of course? Why is this disruption of social convention not made clearer?

But that doesn't make any sense - he offers consolation, followed by a little comedown speech - so clearly David goes from more upset to less, not the other way around.

Jonathan offers consolation afterward, not before. The upset and the sadness is from the fact that they have been forced to separate by the cruelty of Jonathan's father, which, considering David's past service to Saul, is likely especially upsetting.

David 'becomes' great, from kissing on Johnathan. It seems fairly obvious what that means.

"Kissing" is one of three verbs in the verse, with the other two being "bowing" and "weeping", and the one closest to "becoming great" is "weeping." "Kissing", for its part, doesn't even have an explicitly sexual connotation in this historical context.

You're stretching the verse beyond its meaning.

And adoption carries no intrinsic implication of carnal knowledge between adoptive parents.

Perhaps, but opposition to, say, two dedicated friends adopting children does not suggest opposition to dedicated friendship itself, any more than opposition to a private business adopting children suggests opposition to capitalism.

(In the realm of pure logic, it is even true, on the same grounds, that opposition to gay adoption need not imply any negative judgment about same-sex relationships: one could consistently argue, "Same-sex relationships are natural, ethical, and healthy, but children need gender role inputs from their parents that can only be provided by opposite-sex couples." The material reality, however, is that such positions are for the most part founded in bigotry.)

The Song of Solomon is love poetry, not narrative.


It's an example - and one that proves the point. There aren't only two ways to discuss sex in the bible.


I don't know where either of you are getting "confusion."

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: 'Thou son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?" (1 Samuel 20:30)

Maybe you're using a different translation--care to provide it? (And maybe explain how, on that interpretation, Jonathan is "confusing" himself, and how such "confusion" relates to the inheritance that Saul mentions in the next verse?)


It's a KJV translation. And - while the more accurate translation would be 'shame' (or 'shameful thing'), perhaps - that would make even less sense in your interpretation - it would basically mean that Saul is saying to Johnathan 'you're bringing shame to your mother's gender'.


The only connection to the "sexual sins" is the common usage of "nakedness" to reference sexuality.


That's kind of like saying 'the only connection between hiroshima and nuclear weapons is the undeniable, absolute connection between them', though...


Again: what does this have to do with inheritance, which is, after all, the reason Saul is antagonistic toward David, and also why he thinks Jonathan should be? Furthermore, if Jonathan and David are transgressing gender roles, why is their relationship otherwise taken as a matter of course? Why is this disruption of social convention not made clearer?

Why is the fact that Jesus was supposed to be an unmarried Jew in his thirties not expanded upon?

Where is the denial of dinosaurs? How do we know the old testament isn't set in an environment entirely populated by giant lizards?


Their relationship is taken as a matter of course because it's a matter of course. The only reason the relationship is a problem, is because there is power tied up in it, and a throne. Johnathan is willing to basically be David's bitch, what with David being the ambitious one of the two, and Saul don't like it.

Jonathan offers consolation afterward, not before. The upset and the sadness is from the fact that they have been forced to separate by the cruelty of Jonathan's father, which, considering David's past service to Saul, is likely especially upsetting.


First Samuel 20:40-2 (KJV): "And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry [them] to the city. [And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city."

The little comedown speech, where he reaffirms his dedication, occurs after the crying and kissing... and 'exceeding'... has taken place.

It's a hollywood classic moment - the couple get some bad news, David starts sobbing, and Johnathan rushes to his side. He holds him, and there's a sudden electric tension.... a brief pause as they look into one another's eyes, and then their lips touch...

etc.


"Kissing" is one of three verbs in the verse, with the other two being "bowing" and "weeping", and the one closest to "becoming great" is "weeping." "Kissing", for its part, doesn't even have an explicitly sexual connotation in this historical context.


And him 'crying' until he 'exceeds' makes more sense?

They are kissing and crying. The expansion in David's pants is more likely to be caused by the former than the latetr, one would assume.


You're stretching the verse beyond its meaning.


Or beyond it's commonly accepted limit. I think you're trying to 'normalise' it. Curiously, we both think the other is missing the point.


Perhaps, but opposition to, say, two dedicated friends adopting children does not suggest opposition to dedicated friendship itself, any more than opposition to a private business adopting children suggests opposition to capitalism.

(In the realm of pure logic, it is even true, on the same grounds, that opposition to gay adoption need not imply any negative judgment about same-sex relationships: one could consistently argue, "Same-sex relationships are natural, ethical, and healthy, but children need gender role inputs from their parents that can only be provided by opposite-sex couples." The material reality, however, is that such positions are for the most part founded in bigotry.)

It wouldn't work logically, either - because families are not closed systems. Gender roles don't have to come from parents, and both gender roles are accepted as being 'optional', in as much as single parents can adopt.

Regarding your 'private business' example - no it isn't a judgement of capitalism, per se - but it IS saying that, just because you're a business, you CAN'T be a good parental arrangement.

It's an example - and one that proves the point.

It's irrelevant pedantry, and it ignores the fact that my language in no way suggested that all the Biblical euphemisms for sex were reducible to those two.

It's a KJV translation.

It does indeed appear to be. Fair enough.

And - while the more accurate translation would be 'shame' (or 'shameful thing'), perhaps - that would make even less sense in your interpretation - it would basically mean that Saul is saying to Johnathan 'you're bringing shame to your mother's gender'.

No, "to your mother's nakedness"--that is, "You are diminishing her stature by denying the product of her nakedness (yourself) his rightful birthright."

That's kind of like saying 'the only connection between hiroshima and nuclear weapons is the undeniable, absolute connection between them', though...

The point is that there's no sense of "sexual immorality" here. I mean, the only way you could realistically interpret it that way is if you suggest that Saul is accusing Jonathan of incest, but that obviously makes no sense in context.

Why is the fact that Jesus was supposed to be an unmarried Jew in his thirties not expanded upon?

The Gospels were not necessarily intended for a Jewish audience (after all, they were written in Greek), and there were other unmarried Jewish men around at the time. In any case, Jesus's behavior and attitudes (including his attitudes towards sex and marriage) are marked out as being at odds with convention throughout.

Where is the denial of dinosaurs? How do we know the old testament isn't set in an environment entirely populated by giant lizards?

You are stretching the point beyond all reason.

The only reason the relationship is a problem, is because there is power tied up in it, and a throne.

Agreed. I'm not sure how "gender roles" fits into this--unless maybe you think Saul is accusing Jonathan of being effeminate and weak for favoring David over himself, in which case there is no clear sense of homosexuality at all.

Now, I have to admit in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what the Bible says about same-sex marriage. It should be legal regardless. But I found the article interesting and persuasive, nonetheless.

What say you NSG?

Before I begin, let me say that I'm using TCT in no small part as an object lesson here to the larger liberal community, rather than getting any explicit hate on for TCT with this post.

To the main, though, I say that you either need to start caring what the Bible says, or you need to find yourself a more agreeably homogenous body politic. The rationale is simple: it is part and parcel of democracy that we agree to live by the consent of the majority, but only after the electorate as a whole engages in a full, vigorous, fair debate so that the electorate may not only choose, but choose well what is in its best interest. A full, vigorous, and fair debate is only possible if both sides at least attempt to reconcile their worldviews. If, for instance, policymakers try to decide how the concept of heat should be taught in schools, and one side gets up and talks about calories and mass, and the other side gets up and says "in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what that idiot says about 'calories' and 'mass', so I'm going to spend my entire time talking about phlogysten (sp?) and aether", policymakers are going to know only that there are two systems of explaining heat, they are incommensurable systems of heat, and they don't have the faintest which one is more accurate, because the discussion LEFT NO CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING BETWEEN THEM. Likely in such an instance, they go with what they know, which is to kick it to whatever seems more popular among the people, people whom are also left uniformed by your "discussion" for the same reason.

The same damn problem applies, TCT, when you say "in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what the Bible says about same-sex marriage", when the other side relies on the Bible as a means of verifying that which is true. When you say things like that, and perhaps even moreso when you throw arrogant "Well, what about shellfish!" first-grade-level Bible-study lines around, you are showing above all else that you do not intend to engage these people in a serious debate or offer serious reasons why they should reconsider their opinions. And while I as a liberal certainly follow every blowhard who dismisses the ideas of his intellectual opponents out of hand, most of these people seem to be more subtle and nuanced in what they choose to believe in than I am, and if this is going to be a democracy, maybe, just maybe, you ought to treat them as such. Which by extension means that maybe, just maybe, you ought to try taking the Bible as a serious work and trying to understand how it works in their mind, and why it may not say what they think it says. Either that or you can go back to preaching to the choir about how the other side is nothing but a bunch of bigots. Your call.

The little comedown speech, where he reaffirms his dedication, occurs after the crying and kissing... and 'exceeding'... has taken place.

Which is what I said.

And him 'crying' until he 'exceeds' makes more sense?

Exceeds emotionally, yes.

The expansion in David's pants is more likely to be caused by the former than the latetr, one would assume.

There is no reference to "pants." Literally, David is the entity who is made greater, not any part of him. This is not a decisive interpretative consideration, obviously, but it allows far more room for ambiguity than you let it.

It wouldn't work logically, either - because families are not closed systems.

"Logically" only in the narrow sense of being logically valid, and not being an outright contradiction. I agree that it is a poor argument in the context of reasonable assumptions about how families and children work, not to mention the scientific evidence and the need for more adoptive parents.

A full, vigorous, and fair debate is only possible if both sides at least attempt to reconcile their worldviews.

Democratic debate is not about unanimity, it is about dissent. Its criterion is reason, not compromise. If reason says that the Bible has no bearing on ethics or on public policy, then that argument should be advanced in the context of democratic discussion.

Reconciliation comes in past the point of "full, vigorous, and fair debate": having decided where we stand, we make a decision in which everyone participates (through representatives, in this case.)

...policymakers are going to know only that there are two systems of explaining heat, they are incommensurable systems of heat, and they don't have the faintest which one is more accurate, because the discussion LEFT NO CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING BETWEEN THEM.

That's a pretty huge assumption right there. On what basis do you argue that there is no "criteria" with which to choose between deriving public policy from the Bible and deriving public policy from some other source? I'm sure TCT or anyone else with that position could give you some good reasons for it--I know I can--but then, I'm sure you can think of such reasons yourself, too.

When you say things like that... you are showing above all else that you do not intend to engage these people in a serious debate or offer serious reasons why they should reconsider their opinions.

Why do "serious reasons" mean "Biblical reasons"?

If someone says "The Earth is flat, because this piece of paper I found in my garage says it is," must I join him or her in using the piece of paper as a standard? Maybe the piece of paper really does say the Earth is flat. That doesn't change the fact that the Earth plainly isn't.

Which by extension means that maybe, just maybe, you ought to try taking the Bible as a serious work and trying to understand how it works in their mind, and why it may not say what they think it says.

Why does it matter whether it says what they think it says? Maybe it really does--I certainly am not convinced by the arguments of religious liberals to the contrary. Homosexuality is still ethical, same-sex marriage should still be legal, and homophobia is still immoral.

"And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry [them] to the city. [And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city."

The little comedown speech, where he reaffirms his dedication, occurs after the crying and kissing... and 'exceeding'... has taken place.

But at Jonathan's insistence, citing "the LORD", they stop before "sowing seed."

It doesn't matter really that J thought it was God's will. "I have a headache" would have been just as legitimate.

It's a hollywood classic moment - the couple get some bad news, David starts sobbing, and Johnathan rushes to his side. He holds him, and there's a sudden electric tension.... a brief pause as they look into one another's eyes, and then their lips touch...

etc.


Only, no etc. Or at least that's how I read it.

My translation* has none of what is being discussed. Jonathan and David part sadly, but there's no "exceeding" going on, and Saul is upset because his son is friends with the one who he fears will take his place as king. Is it only the KJV that allows for these interpretations?

*Well, it's not really my translation. Biblical scholars translated it.

My translation* has none of what is being discussed. Jonathan and David part sadly, but there's no "exceeding" going on, and Saul is upset because his son is friends with the one who he fears will take his place as king. Is it only the KJV that allows for these interpretations?

To "become greater" could mean to exceed Jonathan in emotion. That is a reasonable interpretation.

Democratic debate is not about unanimity, it is about dissent. Its criterion is reason, not compromise. If reason says that the Bible has no bearing on ethics or on public policy, then that argument should be advanced in the context of democratic discussion.

You're conflating about two or three different issues here.

Democratic debate is about neither unaminity nor dissent; it's about creating a workable consensus with which all parties can, win or lose, agree to. Specifically in our system, we agree to a consensus if it's been voted on by by the electorate after a full and fair hearing by all sides of the issue. And therein is the problem, because I can read your argument as saying one of two things.

I could read it as saying that since reason dictates that the Bible has no bearing on ethics or on public policy, then all other positions, being unreasonable, ought to be filibustered. Even if I didn't disagree with that normatively, which I do, descriptively a large plurality of the electorate would rather vehemently disagree as well, which suggests that this is ultimately talking out of both sides of your mouth: all considerations will be discussed, so long as they are viable, and what I and my portion of the electorate finds reasonable will define viability, while at the same time I'm going to pretend I'm a democrat rather than an intellectual aristocrat.

Of course, I could also read it as saying that since you don't find using the Bible to define acceptable public policy, you are going to present arguments as such to the larger community. While I accept that; indeed that's precisely what my post was trying to argue liberals should be doing, traditionally they have done a very poor job precisely because they don't bother to treat this as a discussion worth having.


Reconciliation comes in past the point of "full, vigorous, and fair debate": having decided where we stand, we make a decision in which everyone participates (through representatives, in this case.)


Well done, but reconciliation requires something else beyond the decision-making which my point is trying to get at and you seem to be ignoring: people on both sides have to accept the result as legitemate because of the process that derived it. TCT's, and your post, seem to take as given that if reasonable, then legitemate, when there is no natural reason to believe that is so. Indeed, every historical example in the last 30 years suggests that large swaths of the country do not accept "reasonable" propositions such as gay marriage as legitemate irrespective of the process used to derive them.


That's a pretty huge assumption right there. On what basis do you argue that there is no "criteria" with which to choose between deriving public policy from the Bible and deriving public policy from some other source? I'm sure TCT or anyone else with that position could give you some good reasons for it--I know I can--but then, I'm sure you can think of such reasons yourself, too.

Of course I can; I wouldn't have been a very good student for the last 8 years in undergrad and grad school if I couldn't. But by the same token, not every person in America has had eight years of study on the subject of political and moral philosophy, and as such, they don't recognize why they should choose option B over "Because X is in the Bible, and America is not ungodly". Now given that, we, the advocates of said option B in this case could explain why in this case gay marriage is not ungodly, or we could explain why the X they think is in the Bible really isn't, or we could just call them moronic bigots. We seem to be going mostly for the third option, and to judge by our track record it isn't going very well.


Why do "serious reasons" mean "Biblical reasons"?

If someone says "The Earth is flat, because this piece of paper I found in my garage says it is," must I join him or her in using the piece of paper as a standard? Maybe the piece of paper really does say the Earth is flat. That doesn't change the fact that the Earth plainly isn't.


1) Since when has every statement in the Bible had the truth-value of a Flat Earth Society manifesto?

2) Did it occur to you that truth may not necessarily be the first thing on people's minds when they consult the Bible?

Let me put it this way: if you are like any philosophy student I've ever met, you love stories, movies, books, the like. One of my philosophy-department friend loves Russian literature: Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, etc. Another loves classics of any stripe: the Iliad, Moby Dick, etc. I myself go in for comics: I was planning on reading The Man of Steel, Preacher, and The Dark Knight Returns over the semester break. Now it begs the question why I and my fellow friends take pleasure in doing something like this? Is it because I find the idea of a guy who wears his underpants on the outside of a blue costume with a red cape "true"? Or because my friend takes pleasure in how well the story of a Russian noblewoman throwing herself in front of a train documents the oppressive conditions of nobles in Russia at the time? Or because Diomedes spearing Mars is clearly in the archeological record at Troy? No. We read them because we get meaning out them; they fill in not just "what" is happening, but also the phenomenological "why". I haven't had a very fun life, but I get a sense of faith and purpose out of reading Superman comics. My friend gets a sense of pathos and sympathy from Anna Karenina.

In the same way, might it just be true that people read the Bible not to mechanically pound out how the world works, but to help fill in their worldview and tell them why the world works the way it does? And by casually dismissing that, isn't that a good recipe for people to see how you do things as illegitemate in the public policy forum when you decide, without much discussion, that their understanding of how the world works is just clearly false and should not be discussed?

This is really what I'm trying to get at, Soheran. I get pissed when some idiot glazes over when I talk about what a passage of Locke means with respect to how our society should be run, and then say "that's nice, but it's not really what I'm talking about. Have a nice day". It isn't just the condesension; it's the lack of respect implicit in the failure to even attempt to hear me out. I take people who were instrumental in setting up what our system of government is seriously, and I expect others to as well. If there were real issues at stake, I would find that person's refusal to even consider what I'm saying to be downright infuriating. And so, I'm not too suprised when someone else, having substituted "The Bible" for "Locke" in their eyes, feels the same way when someone says "The Bible has nothing to do with this", rightly or wrongly and even if from a purely factual perspective it were true.


Why does it matter whether it says what they think it says? Maybe it really does--I certainly am not convinced by the arguments of religious liberals to the contrary. Homosexuality is still ethical, same-sex marriage should still be legal, and homophobia is still immoral.

Because they don't agree with you, and they don't accept your efforts as legitemate when you win, and legitemacy is necessary for a system of government to work. Given that, you have to make a good-faith effort at persuasion. Or, you can just keep talking past one another and let us continue to feel as if there is us and them in this society, and we do not, cannot trust them. I myself feel that the latter undermines our notions of democracy, but that's just me.

Before I begin, let me say that I'm using TCT in no small part as an object lesson here to the larger liberal community, rather than getting any explicit hate on for TCT with this post.

To the main, though, I say that you either need to start caring what the Bible says, or you need to find yourself a more agreeably homogenous body politic. The rationale is simple: it is part and parcel of democracy that we agree to live by the consent of the majority, but only after the electorate as a whole engages in a full, vigorous, fair debate so that the electorate may not only choose, but choose well what is in its best interest. A full, vigorous, and fair debate is only possible if both sides at least attempt to reconcile their worldviews. If, for instance, policymakers try to decide how the concept of heat should be taught in schools, and one side gets up and talks about calories and mass, and the other side gets up and says "in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what that idiot says about 'calories' and 'mass', so I'm going to spend my entire time talking about phlogysten (sp?) and aether", policymakers are going to know only that there are two systems of explaining heat, they are incommensurable systems of heat, and they don't have the faintest which one is more accurate, because the discussion LEFT NO CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING BETWEEN THEM. Likely in such an instance, they go with what they know, which is to kick it to whatever seems more popular among the people, people whom are also left uniformed by your "discussion" for the same reason.

The same damn problem applies, TCT, when you say "in the interest of intellectual honesty, I don't give a crap what the Bible says about same-sex marriage", when the other side relies on the Bible as a means of verifying that which is true. When you say things like that, and perhaps even moreso when you throw arrogant "Well, what about shellfish!" first-grade-level Bible-study lines around, you are showing above all else that you do not intend to engage these people in a serious debate or offer serious reasons why they should reconsider their opinions. And while I as a liberal certainly follow every blowhard who dismisses the ideas of his intellectual opponents out of hand, most of these people seem to be more subtle and nuanced in what they choose to believe in than I am, and if this is going to be a democracy, maybe, just maybe, you ought to treat them as such. Which by extension means that maybe, just maybe, you ought to try taking the Bible as a serious work and trying to understand how it works in their mind, and why it may not say what they think it says. Either that or you can go back to preaching to the choir about how the other side is nothing but a bunch of bigots. Your call.

*sigh*

1. It is a bit odd to be berated for failing to engage those that rely on the Bible, when the OP is rather expressly an argument about what the Bible has to say on the matter of same-sex marriage.

2. Your bizarre thesis that in order to have a democracy I must agree with the beliefs of those whom I disagree with is absurd. Among other things I can respectfully disagree without sharing belief systems.

3. Your premise your entire rant on the mistaken idea that I have never studied the Bible, Christian beliefs, or the foundations thereof. You are wrong. I'm just not convinced by these beliefs.

4. I'm curious. Rather than disclose in the interest of intellectual honesty that my decision about the legality of same-sex marriage does not hinge on Biblical exegesis, should I have lied?

In Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
Now, this is the same book of the Bible that sets the laws of kosher and how to purify lepers. Any Christian, at least, who uses this exact verse as a reason to oppose gay marriage is doing some selective quoting.

Beyond the obvious flaws you point out, where does Leviticus 18:22 say anything about who should be able to marry?

Come on, you're being disingenuous.

Does anyone object to strong, loving male friendships? Not to my knowledge. What people object to is sexual relations between people of the same sex.

If marriage were a legal status attached to people who held one another in mutual affection, this argument might work. But it is not: it is a legal status attached to people in romantic, sexual relationships.

This argument might work better if it were attached to Genesis 2:18 rather than David and Jonathan. There God suggests that the fundamental purpose of the union between man and woman is not procreation at all, but companionship and aid: ends a same-sex relationship, and a same-sex marriage, can fulfill perfectly well.

Fair point. Of course, I wonder, why don't we require sexual activity as a condition of marriage?

Beyond the obvious flaws you point out, where does Leviticus 18:22 say anything about who should be able to marry?

That's true, it makes no mention of who you should be able to marry. (At least this particular verse; I can't speak for the entire Bible.) But I have never heard, in the Bible or anywhere else, of a concept of marriage that was completely separate from what this verse forbids.

To "become greater" could mean to exceed Jonathan in emotion. That is a reasonable interpretation.

My version doesn't even have that:
When the boy had left, David rose from beside the mound and prostrated himself on the ground three times before Jonathan in homage. They kissed each other and wept aloud together.
That's it. I don't know if it was intentionally left out, or if the translator just felt it didn't make sense in English.

Xenophobialand:

I do not believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. As a result, the Bible is completely irrelevant and meaningless to me. Am I supposed to lie about that and claim that I do take it seriously as a guide for ethical behavior, when in fact, I do not? How does lying about something like that show respect to other people's beliefs?

Also, if it is your argument that I am supposed to pretend to accept the Bible as a serious moral guide for the sake of Christians, do you equally expect them to pretend to accept MY beliefs as a serious moral guide for the sake of me and people who believe as I do?

To be honest, I don't expect them to, and I wouldn't want them to, either, because I know they would be lying, and I do not want to be told lies. I know that the real truth is that they never give my beliefs a single thought. They remain focused on their own beliefs and their Bible, without the slightest concern for what my beliefs are.

And I do the same -- remaining focused on my beliefs and not caring one whit nor spending a moment thinking about their beliefs.

Now, in a diverse society with a secular government, tell me -- how does that situation of mutual not caring about the other guy's beliefs and books lead to not being able to have democratic debate? How does people being honest with each other about what's important and meaningful to them and what isn't undermine a cooperative democratic system?

*sigh*

1. It is a bit odd to be berated for failing to engage those that rely on the Bible, when the OP is rather expressly an argument about what the Bible has to say on the matter of same-sex marriage.

2. Your bizarre thesis that in order to have a democracy I must agree with the beliefs of those whom I disagree with is absurd. Among other things I can respectfully disagree without sharing belief systems.

3. Your premise your entire rant on the mistaken idea that I have never studied the Bible, Christian beliefs, or the foundations thereof. You are wrong. I'm just not convinced by these beliefs.

4. I'm curious. Rather than disclose in the interest of intellectual honesty that my decision about the legality of same-sex marriage does not hinge on Biblical exegesis, should I have lied?

/facepalm

Perhaps I should try this again, since I must not have done a very good job the first time.

I in no way impugned your study or knowledge of the Bible. I impugned either your intellectual integrity or your commitment to civic order, as the case falls out. To put it in an analogy format, I've usually found that in order to learn a new philosopher, it's necessary to suspend judgment completely about what he's saying until I've worked out the nuances of what he was saying in my head. That means that I stop thinking about whether I ultimately agree with his reasoning until after I've found his first principles and figure out how they work together. By no means do I have to suspend judgment completely; I just have to refrain until the knowledge has been acquired. By contrast, when I do let my feelings interfere with a writer (which has been known to happen; I couldn't get past about page 20 of Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal because I found her argumentation so repulsive), it all too easily leads me to dismiss a thinker in no small part because I've failed to grasp the nuances and complexity because I was reading to reify my own take.

Similarly, my retort to your all-too-easy dismissal of Bible-based thinking works something like this: in order for democracy to work, in other words, for both the winning and the losing party to see the results of the democratic process as legitemately binding on both parties, you (as in, you, a party on one side or faction in this duspute) have to find some means of building a common understanding just to get the debate started. By common understanding, I mean that you at least agree to the use of common terms and common meanings, even if you disagree about the impact that has on the ultimate result. So for example, while you and I may disagree about Lou Gehrig being a better player than Babe Ruth, the discussion will only be possible if we both accept that "duration of career" is as potentially valid means of evaluating a baseball player as "home runs hit"; our debate only begins once we've decided that the subject of which of the two criteria is the better criteria is a valid subject of debate.

You aren't doing that in this debate. You've effectively said from the outset "I don't agree that Lou Gehrig is better than Babe Ruth, and no reasonable man could think otherwise". When pressed, your argument seems to be if you are a reasonable person, then the only possible means of deciding the quality of a ball player is how many home runs they hit, in which case, clearly Babe Ruth is better than Lou Gehrig, and aren't I a moron for not recognizing the plain facts that Babe Ruth hit more home runs than Lou Gehrig.

The point is not that you have to agree with the beliefs of those with whom you disagree. It's that you have to see them as potentially reasonable, and give that person a chance to articulate his argument before preemptively deciding that said person is a moron for believing such a preposterous claim. Maybe it is preposterous. But it can only be determined, just as in studying a new philosopher, after they've made the argument in all its nuances and contexts. By failing to even take the idea that someone could find meaningful value in the public policy realm from the Bible, you've done one of two things. You might have made the error of prematurely dismissing their ideas out of hand. Or you just don't see those as within the realm of plausibility and don't want to discuss them. In the first case, you are making an intellectual mistake. In the second, you are making a public policy mistake, because by treating it as implausible and therefore undiscussable, you've undermined the means by which this democracy creates legitemacy for its decisions.

/facepalm

Perhaps I should try this again, since I must not have done a very good job the first time.

I in no way impugned your study or knowledge of the Bible. I impugned either your intellectual integrity or your commitment to civic order, as the case falls out. <snip for length>
First off, I personally think you are going way overboard here, and that you're basing this on a misunderstanding of TCT's original statement.

He said that HE doesn't care what the Bible says about it. You know, as in HE isn't a believer in a religion that follows the Bible. As in, regardless of what the Bible says, HE thinks gay marriage should be legal. And the only reason he told us that was so that we would not think he was purporting to personally represent a religious, Bible-based viewpoint. Because he's not. Being clear about that is intellectual honesty.

Second, I fail to see how being honest about your own views and the relative relevance or irrelevance of the Bible to your own views undermines social order. I fail to see how acknowledging that you do not believe in the teachings of the Bible and do not base your ethical/moral views on the Bible is somehow hostile towards the Bible and those who do follow it. I fail to see how being honest about such a difference is closed-minded or shutting oneself off from understanding the other person's views, or an attack on or dismissal of those other views.

Frankly, your entire argument sounds like an accusation that anyone who says they like hotdogs better than hamburgers is denigrating hamburgers and if they say otherwise, they are lying. It doesn't make much sense.

The point is not that you have to agree with the beliefs of those with whom you disagree. It's that you have to see them as potentially reasonable, and give that person a chance to articulate his argument before preemptively deciding that said person is a moron for believing such a preposterous claim.

No, I don't. And the reason for that is, you operate with the presumption of approaching a new philosophy. It isn't. Not at all. I've heard every argument, every justification, every rationale. They all fail, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, if you could come up with another argument, another rationale, another perspective, then sure, let me hear it and I'll give it all due credit.

But so far everyone who has tried to "convince" me has just rehashed the same old nonsense.

Democratic debate is about neither unaminity nor dissent; it's about creating a workable consensus with which all parties can, win or lose, agree to.

That's not the point of "debate"; that's closer to the point of the democratic social contract. Debate seeks truth, irrespective of its popularity or broad acceptability. That's why we have stringent free speech protections, even for offensive or extremist speech.

While I accept that; indeed that's precisely what my post was trying to argue liberals should be doing, traditionally they have done a very poor job precisely because they don't bother to treat this as a discussion worth having.

Now you're the one doing the conflating. "I don't care what the Bible says" is not the same thing as "I don't care what the Bible says and I'm going to refuse to talk to you if you reference the Bible at all."

people on both sides have to accept the result as legitemate because of the process that derived it.

The "process" here being the democratic political process? Agreed.

TCT's, and your post, seem to take as given that if reasonable, then legitemate, when there is no natural reason to believe that is so. Indeed, every historical example in the last 30 years suggests that large swaths of the country do not accept "reasonable" propositions such as gay marriage as legitemate irrespective of the process used to derive them.

This makes no sense to me. First you suggest that an important part of "reconciliation" is respect for process, and then you suggest here that large portions of same-sex marriage opponents don't respect the process. Alright, but I am not a same-sex marriage opponent, so I'm not sure how it means that I have somehow failed to fulfill the full meaning of reconciliation.

Now given that, we, the advocates of said option B in this case could explain why in this case gay marriage is not ungodly, or we could explain why the X they think is in the Bible really isn't, or we could just call them moronic bigots.

Or we could go for the fourth option and point out that religious authority is not necessarily the best source for moral truth.

1) Since when has every statement in the Bible had the truth-value of a Flat Earth Society manifesto?

It's a question of standard, not of content. The Bible may happen to have much truth in it. But the absolute belief that "Whatever is in the Bible must be true" does not base its judgment on some objective, independent determination of how much truth the Bible has.

2) Did it occur to you that truth may not necessarily be the first thing on people's minds when they consult the Bible?

I'm not sure whether anything but a claim of truth (including morality in the category of "truth") could justify founding public policy on Biblical authority. Certainly those people who justify their political stances on Biblical bases seem pretty convinced that those bases are matters of truth.

In the same way, might it just be true that people read the Bible not to mechanically pound out how the world works, but to help fill in their worldview and tell them why the world works the way it does?

Maybe, but while I enjoy literature, I certainly don't assign it any moral or political authority: my favorite novel is probably As a Driven Leaf, but you won't see me defending the philosophical positions it lays out. I love the Harry Potter series, and I think that at times they even have real literary merit, but I don't believe in an afterlife and I'm skeptical as to the supreme moral importance of love. (Admittedly, both Milton Steinberg and J. K. Rowling share with me a broad set of humanistic moral values, but I tend to think I accept those values for independent reasons, not because I read their books.)

If a person lets whatever personal benefits he or she gets from religious belief and practice intrude upon his or her judgments of moral right, that is serious irresponsibility, and it should absolutely be criticized.

And by casually dismissing that, isn't that a good recipe for people to see how you do things as illegitemate in the public policy forum when you decide, without much discussion, that their understanding of how the world works is just clearly false and should not be discussed?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss it, and to rationally challenge it, and to hear arguments for it. But I'm not about to operate within it--at least not unless I am convinced of its soundness.

And so, I'm not too suprised when someone else, having substituted "The Bible" for "Locke" in their eyes, feels the same way when someone says "The Bible has nothing to do with this", rightly or wrongly and even if from a purely factual perspective it were true.

A view does not automatically have to be respected simply because someone holds it. There are standards of judgment: is this position in accordance with reason and evidence? Certainly, no view should be dismissed out of hand, but as I've said there are plenty of really good reasons to not regard the Bible as a legitimate source of moral authority: sure, perhaps we should present those reasons, but in no sense does that mean that we should care what the Bible says.

Given that, you have to make a good-faith effort at persuasion.

Certainly. What specifically are you criticizing here?

Fair point. Of course, I wonder, why don't we require sexual activity as a condition of marriage?

Probably because we consider it implicit in the cultural concept, and because nobody wants the government intruding so far into people's lives as to check up on whether or not they are having sex.

Xenophobialand:

I do not believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. As a result, the Bible is completely irrelevant and meaningless to me. Am I supposed to lie about that and claim that I do take it seriously as a guide for ethical behavior, when in fact, I do not? How does lying about something like that show respect to other people's beliefs?

Also, if it is your argument that I am supposed to pretend to accept the Bible as a serious moral guide for the sake of Christians, do you equally expect them to pretend to accept MY beliefs as a serious moral guide for the sake of me and people who believe as I do?

To be honest, I don't expect them to, and I wouldn't want them to, either, because I know they would be lying, and I do not want to be told lies. I know that the real truth is that they never give my beliefs a single thought. They remain focused on their own beliefs and their Bible, without the slightest concern for what my beliefs are.

And I do the same -- remaining focused on my beliefs and not caring one whit nor spending a moment thinking about their beliefs.

Now, in a diverse society with a secular government, tell me -- how does that situation of mutual not caring about the other guy's beliefs and books lead to not being able to have democratic debate? How does people being honest with each other about what's important and meaningful to them and what isn't undermine a cooperative democratic system?

That's just it: we aren't being honest with each other about what's important and meaningful to them and what isn't, because we've already determined that one possible means of determining what is important and meaningful has no validity, and we've already determined that before the debate has begun. As such, any "discussion" is really a matter of filibustering past one another and wondering why the other side doesn't see how eminently reasonable you're being.

To use another analogy: suppose I were to propose that we debate whether Marvel or DC has better comics. Well, in that case, just in order to have a discussion, we have ultimately set up a framework for evaluating the two universes and seeing what we mean by "better comics". Maybe I mean that one has more psychologically real characters. Maybe I mean that one has higher-quality paper. It's not immediate just from asking "Which is better: Marvel or DC" which of the two I mean, and part of the debate is setting up that framework. Once we've recognized such a framework, then we can reasonably discuss whether I've evaluated it correctly, even whether or not I've used the best of all possible frameworks: it's reasonable based on common understandings of what an interesting debate is, and further common understanding that people don't debate what which is uninteresting, that if I am talking about whether Marvel or DC has higher-quality paper, I'm using a flawed method of evaluation. But it's important to note that there's nothing a priori about that argument that makes it wrong; it's only wrong-headed method of evaluation in light of common understandings about what we're trying to do.

In the debate about "What do we accept as a legitemate source for public policy rationales", however, we do treat it as a priori obvious that "The Bible" is not a valid answer. Moreover, we seem to do it without reflecting why that is or trying to understanding the nuances and complexities for why someone might say "The Bible". The problem with this is, as I've tried to emphasize, our democratic system, like any system, only works when the people see the result as legitemate, irrespective of win or loss on the matter. People will only take the result to be legitemate in a democracy if they see the process as legitemate, and to have a legitemate process in a democracy requires that we have a discussion much like the hypothetical "Marvel vs. DC" argument above, having commonly worked out what each side means when it says "Marvel (or DC) is better", and arguing from there whether the rationale used to reach that result agrees with larger notions like "What are we trying to do with our society", "How does this square with authoritative controls", "What is authoritative in this manner". It's important to note that it is not set in stone nor universally agreed that The Constitution is authoritative, or that The Constitution obviously forbids any interaction between public policy and Scripture, or that our objective is to create a more just as opposed to a more Godly society.

It is in that vein that I'm arguing we need to take religion a lot more seriously. Not because I ultimately think the fundamentalists are right, but because I want them to see the process as legitemate, and they don't see it as such right now in no small part because neither side even bothers to discuss the larger framework questions when they discuss issues like "What is the relationship between public policy and Scripture". Each side just goes into their own narrative in which the definitions and evaluations of what is the best framework are already assumed. And then we wonder why people lose faith in the democratic system and why 40% of the country treats 40% of the rest of the country like an occupying power.

That's just it: we aren't being honest with each other about what's important and meaningful to them and what isn't, because we've already determined that one possible means of determining what is important and meaningful has no validity, and we've already determined that before the debate has begun. As such, any "discussion" is really a matter of filibustering past one another and wondering why the other side doesn't see how eminently reasonable you're being.
Excuse me but you either missed or ignored my point, which was:

WE have not determined any such thing.

YOU have merely asserted that TCT made such an argument, which he did not, as I pointed out to you.

If you are going to criticize people for fillibustering past each other, maybe you should try not being such a prime example of the practice yourself. First you put words in TCT's mouth, then you talk right past my point so that you can keep arguing the point you propped up unfairly on TCT.

Unfortunately the entire rest of your argument is based on you accusing TCT and others in this thread of doing something we have not done. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant, as well as annoying (in its strawman elements).

To boil it down to its one relevantly applicable element, you appear to be arguing that, as a general principle, it is better to analyze the content of what people say rather than simply dismiss them without a hearing based on prior prejudice. Thanks for pointing that out. If someone comes along who does start dismissing people without a hearing based on prior prejudice, I, for one, will be sure to direct them to your posts for why they should not do that.

EDIT: And by the way, I notice that you did not answer the questions I asked you in the post you were responding to.

Here's another religious perspective.

An it harm none, do what ye will.

Does giving the gay and lesbian community having the right to get married really harming anyone?

No?

Ok then.

Here's another religious perspective.



Does giving the gay and lesbian community having the right to get married really harming anyone?

No?

Ok then.
And I'm sure that those Christians who choose to use the Bible as their reason for denying gays that right will follow Xenophobia's advice and treat the Wiccan view as a serious and valid moral authority.

*waits for that to happen*

And I'm sure that those Christians who choose to use the Bible as their reason for denying gays that right will follow Xenophobia's advice and treat the Wiccan view as a serious and valid moral authority.

*waits for that to happen*

Hey, the thread said "Religious case for Same-Sex Marriage". Didn't say what religion. ;)

Hey, the thread said "Religious case for Same-Sex Marriage". Didn't say what religion. ;)
Oh, I get it. I was just needling Xeno, really. ;)

Actually, I find the OP's suggestion that, for those who rely on the Bible as their guide, there is just as much authority in it in support of gay rights as against them, quite satisifying. If one wanted to counter religious argument with religious argument, then one could do it very well with the Bible.

But aside from that, we all know that there are many religions -- including some Christian sects -- which have no problem at all with gay rights and gay marriage. If, as Xeno argues, everyone is supposed to give credence to everyone else's ideas, whether they mean anything to us or not, then why are the Wiccans, for example, not looked to as a moral authority on gay rights as much as the Christians and their Bible are? Just idly wondering.

whether they mean anything to us or not, then why are the Wiccans, for example, not looked to as a moral authority on gay rights as much as the Christians and their Bible are? Just idly wondering.

Because (and as my mom has said) we're devil worshipers and we're all going to burn in Hell. Yea...I was recently forced out of the broom closet when my parents broke into my apartment and discovered my Wiccan stuff. :(

Interesting enough, I know that the Bible has some translation errors in it, and I wonder how much the original Aramaic or Greek Bible matches up to KJV or International Bible.

Because (and as my mom has said) we're devil worshipers and we're all going to burn in Hell. Yea...I was recently forced out of the broom closet when my parents broke into my apartment and discovered my Wiccan stuff. :(

Interesting enough, I know that the Bible has some translation errors in it, and I wonder how much the original Aramaic or Greek Bible matches up to KJV or International Bible.
Report them to the police. Teach them about personal boundaries.

EDIT: And feh, who cares how much it matches up? Yeah, I suppose it's good to be able to knock down those people who like to claim the Bible is the unchanging and inerrant Word of God, etc, but I don't see how age or lack thereof affects the validity of a religious text (assuming it has any). But then, my religion has no texts, so maybe it's just that I don't care about such things at all.

Report them to the police. Teach them about personal boundaries.

Yea...well they don't respect my personal property, which is why I hated living there growing up. Which is also why I want to move to PA.

What sucks even more is that they threw out my Wiccan stuff, so I have to start all over too. Crap in a fucking hat.

Yea...well they don't respect my personal property, which is why I hated living there growing up. Which is also why I want to move to PA.

What sucks even more is that they threw out my Wiccan stuff, so I have to start all over too. Crap in a fucking hat.


Sounds like you need to get out asap.

Yea...well they don't respect my personal property, which is why I hated living there growing up. Which is also why I want to move to PA.

What sucks even more is that they threw out my Wiccan stuff, so I have to start all over too. Crap in a fucking hat.
Wow. I can't even tell you the decades-long shit storm such a thing would unleash in my family. My relatives (the whole extended clan) have serious problems respecting personal boundaries, but there are lines even they know better than to cross. They've learned what can happen if they do cross them -- epic Sicilian-style feuds that last, literally, for decades, even whole lifetimes. We are not a forgiving bunch. I had great-aunts/uncles who were at war with each other over way more minor things than what your folks did, for upwards of 50 years, and who literally died badmouthing each other.

In my life, I've learned that strong fences make good neighbors in my family. If you want to stay in each other's lives, you stay out of each other's business.

For instance, my mom's problems with respecting my personal boundaries means that she is kept strictly out of the loop of several aspects of my life which I wish to keep control of myself. That includes my religious life. I have a big honking animist shrine right in the middle of my living room. Anyone who visits and asks me about it, will have it explained to them -- except mom. When she comes over and makes snide remarks about it (which she does instead of asking questions), she gets no answer at all. In fact, I've gone so far as to deny that the thing she is talking about is in the room at all (even though it obviously is). She got the message a while ago and stopped sniffing around about it. I believe she has made up some story about what she thinks my beliefs are (or should be), but she doesn't talk about it in front of me, so I don't care.

Wow. I can't even tell you the decades-long shit storm such a thing would unleash in my family. My relatives (the whole extended clan) have serious problems respecting personal boundaries, but there are lines even they know better than to cross. They've learned what can happen if they do cross them -- epic Sicilian-style feuds that last, literally, for decades, even whole lifetimes. We are not a forgiving bunch. I had great-aunts/uncles who were at war with each other over way more minor things than what your folks did, for upwards of 50 years, and who literally died badmouthing each other.

Wow. Well it's not really both of my parents, it's mainly my mom. I doubt my dad looked into my Wiccan stuff, but my mom...I'm willing to bet you $50 that she messed with everything. My dad is more of a hands-off style of parenting.

In my life, I've learned that strong fences make good neighbors in my family. For instance, my mom's problems with respecting my personal boundaries means that she is kept strictly out of the loop of several aspects of my life which I wish to keep control of myself. That includes my religious life. I have a big honking animist shrine right in the middle of my living room. Anyone who visits and asks me about it, will have it explained to them -- except mom. When she comes over and makes snide remarks about it (which she does instead of asking questions), she gets no answer at all. In fact, I've gone so far as to deny that the thing she is asking about is in the room at all (even though it obviously is). She got the message a while ago and stopped sniffing around about it. I believe she has made up some story about what she thinks my beliefs are (or should be), but she doesn't talk about it in front of me, so I don't care.

That is cool man. Can I see pictures of your shrine? When I get my house, I actually plan to have a small space be my altar/worship space where I can worship Wooden and Freya in peace.

I am very tempted to buy my parents a "Wiccan for dummies" book for Christmas or Yule.

Anyways, back on topic. If you want to take this conversation further, you can T'gram me. :)

Wow. Well it's not really both of my parents, it's mainly my mom. I doubt my dad looked into my Wiccan stuff, but my mom...I'm willing to bet you $50 that she messed with everything. My dad is more of a hands-off style of parenting.



That is cool man. Can I see pictures of your shrine? When I get my house, I actually plan to have a small space be my altar/worship space where I can worship Wooden and Freya in peace.

I am very tempted to buy my parents a "Wiccan for dummies" book for Christmas or Yule.

Anyways, back on topic. If you want to take this conversation further, you can T'gram me. :)
There's not much to discuss. I don't have pictures of the shrine. I want to redesign it anyway. Right now, it's a three-tiered collection of objects and images that relate to my "tutelary" deities/spirits and my ancestors -- yes, the same lovely family who you can tell I cherish so much. ;) :D It has space for offerings of water and incense, but it's a bit cluttered. I haven't decided what the new configuration should be.

Anyway -- /hijack. To get back to the topic, I think it's perfectly legitimate to counter Bible-based arguments against gay rights with Bible-based arguments for gay rights.

Excuse me but you either missed or ignored my point, which was:

WE have not determined any such thing.

YOU have merely asserted that TCT made such an argument, which he did not, as I pointed out to you.

If you are going to criticize people for fillibustering past each other, maybe you should try not being such a prime example of the practice yourself. First you put words in TCT's mouth, then you talk right past my point so that you can keep arguing the point you propped up unfairly on TCT.

Unfortunately the entire rest of your argument is based on you accusing TCT and others in this thread of doing something we have not done. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant, as well as annoying (in its strawman elements).

To boil it down to its one relevantly applicable element, you appear to be arguing that, as a general principle, it is better to analyze the content of what people say rather than simply dismiss them without a hearing based on prior prejudice. Thanks for pointing that out. If someone comes along who does start dismissing people without a hearing based on prior prejudice, I, for one, will be sure to direct them to your posts for why they should not do that.

EDIT: And by the way, I notice that you did not answer the questions I asked you in the post you were responding to.

Okay, then I'll back up still further.

For one thing, I didn't reply to the argument about scope-shift (namely that TCT didn't explicitly say X) because I was under the impression that when I said "Before I begin, let me say that I'm using TCT in no small part as an object lesson here to the larger liberal community, rather than getting any explicit hate on for TCT with this post" in the first sentence of the first post, I thought that point was already reasonably clear: TCT is generally fair-minded enough not to say, "If religious, then moronic", but his statement on its own skated very close, and to be honest, I'm deeply concerned about the smug sense of self-righteousness that usually motivates liberals to say things that TCT said. The larger liberal community is usually far more willing than TCT to say "I don't care what the Bible says" and mean "If you care what the Bible says, you are a moron".

So let's recap, shall we: I'm scope-shifting TCT's argument. By my own admission. In the first sentence. Of my first post.

It is this larger implicit meaning that I am attaching to "we", because presumably "we" are all part of the larger liberal community. If I've mistakenly referred to either TCT, you, myself, Soheran, or anyone else as a liberal when this is not true, then I'm sorry.

Now, as for the filibustering past one another; I admit that was a possibility, but I think a better explanation is that I was under the apparently mistaken impression that you were reading the whole of my posts. If you were, you might, might finger me for threadjacking, although I do think my points are pertinent. To whit, your post queried why you should concern yourself with the worldview of another when that other 1) bases that worldview on a book you find meaningless, and 2) you doubt either their capacity or their willingness to accept your worldview, yes? In which case, I thought my post answered quite succinctly: because democracy requires it, if you are a democrat, then you have to be willing to grant that the book is in some sense meaningful because they get meaning out of it, and implicit in that is that you have to do that until we all either find legitemacy in our public policy determinations, or accept that we are just two disparate polities that should be dis-integrated.

I doubt you can get that out of a simple "look at their content" simplification of what I was saying. Really, I thought my point was simple, but not quite like that. My point in simple form was that all governments require that their citizens see the policy formation mechanism as legitemate, and in a democracy, that means citizens feel, subjectively, that they have been heard whether the policy objectively reflects their viewpoint or not; part of the reason why the religious right might feel so alienated, by extension, is because they are alienated. Not only do they not get their viewpoints reflected in policy, but they feel subjectively like whenever they speak up that they get dismissed out of hand for their trouble. Maybe you should listen to the cultural critique of liberalism once in a while: there is very little talk about specific policies, but they will go on and on and on about how insular, arrogant, snobbish, and elitist liberals are. To which my response is: if our usual response to someone who starts talking about policy in the terms that are familiar to them, and which happen to be based on Scripture, is to say "I don't care what the Bible says" out of hand, then how wrong are they? Insofar as "we", and by "we" I am again referring to the larger liberal community of I which I suspect I'm a part of but could be wrong, theoretically care that our democracy is thought to be legitemate, and practically would not like 30-40% of our nation to feel alienated from its government, it is incumbent upon us to, if not take their policy proposals seriously, at a minimum recognize that someone doesn't have to reason like a liberal to be reasoning somehow, and on that basis hold a reasoned discussion that lets all parties air what their policy is and why substantively that policy is justified.

Okay, then I'll back up still further.

For one thing, I didn't reply to the argument about scope-shift (namely that TCT didn't explicitly say X) because I was under the impression that when I said "Before I begin, let me say that I'm using TCT in no small part as an object lesson here to the larger liberal community, rather than getting any explicit hate on for TCT with this post" in the first sentence of the first post, I thought that point was already reasonably clear: TCT is generally fair-minded enough not to say, "If religious, then moronic", but his statement on its own skated very close, and to be honest, I'm deeply concerned about the smug sense of self-righteousness that usually motivates liberals to say things that TCT said. The larger liberal community is usually far more willing than TCT to say "I don't care what the Bible says" and mean "If you care what the Bible says, you are a moron".

So let's recap, shall we: I'm scope-shifting TCT's argument. By my own admission. In the first sentence. Of my first post.

It is this larger implicit meaning that I am attaching to "we", because presumably "we" are all part of the larger liberal community. If I've mistakenly referred to either TCT, you, myself, Soheran, or anyone else as a liberal when this is not true, then I'm sorry.

Now, as for the filibustering past one another; I admit that was a possibility, but I think a better explanation is that I was under the apparently mistaken impression that you were reading the whole of my posts. If you were, you might, might finger me for threadjacking, although I do think my points are pertinent. To whit, your post queried why you should concern yourself with the worldview of another when that other 1) bases that worldview on a book you find meaningless, and 2) you doubt either their capacity or their willingness to accept your worldview, yes? In which case, I thought my post answered quite succinctly: because democracy requires it, if you are a democrat, then you have to be willing to grant that the book is in some sense meaningful because they get meaning out of it, and implicit in that is that you have to do that until we all either find legitemacy in our public policy determinations, or accept that we are just two disparate polities that should be dis-integrated.

I doubt you can get that out of a simple "look at their content" simplification of what I was saying. Really, I thought my point was simple, but not quite like that. My point in simple form was that all governments require that their citizens see the policy formation mechanism as legitemate, and in a democracy, that means citizens feel, subjectively, that they have been heard whether the policy objectively reflects their viewpoint or not; part of the reason why the religious right might feel so alienated, by extension, is because they are alienated. Not only do they not get their viewpoints reflected in policy, but they feel subjectively like whenever they speak up that they get dismissed out of hand for their trouble. Maybe you should listen to the cultural critique of liberalism once in a while: there is very little talk about specific policies, but they will go on and on and on about how insular, arrogant, snobbish, and elitist liberals are. To which my response is: if our usual response to someone who starts talking about policy in the terms that are familiar to them, and which happen to be based on Scripture, is to say "I don't care what the Bible says" out of hand, then how wrong are they? Insofar as "we", and by "we" I am again referring to the larger liberal community of I which I suspect I'm a part of but could be wrong, theoretically care that our democracy is thought to be legitemate, and practically would not like 30-40% of our nation to feel alienated from its government, it is incumbent upon us to, if not take their policy proposals seriously, at a minimum recognize that someone doesn't have to reason like a liberal to be reasoning somehow, and on that basis hold a reasoned discussion that lets all parties air what their policy is and why substantively that policy is justified.

With all due respect, grow up. For someone preaching "listening" and "understanding the other side," you aren't doing either very well.

You still haven't explained how making a whole thread about the Judeo-Christian Bible's view of gay marriage fails to take seriously the Judeo-Christian view of gay marriage.

Furthermore I am not a child stumbling upon Christianity for the first time -- unlike your analogy to your own approaches to philosophers. I've spent plenty of time on this planet studying and discussing Christian beliefs with Christians and others. Most of my family are devout Christians and I respect their faith. I am not, however, going to be persuaded that same-sex marriage is wrong -- even if the Bible expressly said so. That said, I understand well enough that some people feel differently that I noted the Newsweek article cited in the OP and STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!

Finally, if a Jew or a Christian rejects the U.S. Constitution and accepts only the legitimacy of the Bible when it comes to public policy, there isn't a whole lot of common ground to be found. Rather than play on that tilted field, it makes perfect sense -- as Soheran noted -- to try to persuade them that that very premise is wrong. Nothing disrespectful or condescending about it, but they are wrong.

To use another analogy: suppose I were to propose that we debate whether Marvel or DC has better comics.

No debate necessary. DC is objectively better due to the Vertigo series. :eek::wink::D

Now can we return to the topic which is: the Religous case for (or against) same-sex marriage?

Xenophobialand:
As usual, while I was offline, TCT anticipated my response nearly to the word. I'll have to have a talk with him about that. In the meantime, like he said:

With all due respect, grow up. For someone preaching "listening" and "understanding the other side," you aren't doing either very well.

You are still clearly just trying to sell this pet theory of yours, like it's a new kitchen gadget or something. You are still off topic in a manner that is not really justified, despite your apparent belief that declaring that you are launching your own little side topic does justify your complete misrepresentation of TCT's argument. And you are now also missing or misrepresenting my points as well, with no apparent effect except that you can now try to prop your theory up on me too.

I suppose it never occurs to you that it is not fair to a person to use them to prop up an argument they never made but which you wish someone had so you could attack it. You wanted to make a point about prejudicial thinking, and you just pinned an accusation of prejudicial thinking onto TCT, even though he was not guilty of it. I won't let you do that to me, and I don't like to see it done to other people, either. That's why I'm busting your chops about it.

As for your comments addressed to me, in particular:
Originally Posted by Xenophobialand

...To whit, your post queried why you should concern yourself with the worldview of another when that other 1) bases that worldview on a book you find meaningless, and 2) you doubt either their capacity or their willingness to accept your worldview, yes?
Wrong. That was neither my question nor my point.

First off, it was not my "query." It was a statement of a viewpoint, and one that you got entirely wrong. Reread my original post, and you will see that I am NOT suggesting any hostility or resistance to others' beliefs, as you imply, but rather a indifference towards the authorities behind others' beliefs, on account of the fact that our own beliefs take precedence in our own minds, quite naturally.

Based on that natural indifference, MY QUESTION TO YOU was why should I not be honest about that mindset when debating with other people? How does being honest about the fact that the Bible is not an authoritative moral guide to me undermine democracy?

In other words, if someone says to me "X should be the case because the Bible says so," how does it undermine democracy, debate, or social order for me to answer, "I do not follow the authority of the Bible, so if the Bible is the sole support of your argument, then your argument does not hold water to me"?

In which case, I thought my post answered quite succinctly:...
Wrong again. All you have done is reiterate the same unfounded and irrelevant argument, but you have not actually addressed the very specific question I asked you.

Or we can, like, not put so much stock in ancient collections of stories.

what does religion have to do with marriage? also tbqh I don't care, if your going to push for equality then you can sort out homophobic bullying and the such

^ this

Yea...well they don't respect my personal property, which is why I hated living there growing up. Which is also why I want to move to PA.

What sucks even more is that they threw out my Wiccan stuff, so I have to start all over too. Crap in a fucking hat.

So, basically they're guilty of burglary. I recommend playing hard ball. Report it to the police, do not drop the charges unless they replace your possessions. Hopefully they would rather replace your belongings than serve jail time.

Newsweek has published this excellent article: Our Mutual Joy--Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1)

The article is too lengthy to quote in full (although it is only 3 pages and I encourage you to read it), so here are some excerpts:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

If you look at the Bible as a whole though, you do find an interesting scenario - whenever a man was married to more than one woman, there was always familial trouble. In the case of Abraham, you had the ambition of Hagar and the eventual exile of Ishmael. In Jacob's case, you had the story of Joseph, his first born with Rachel and of course, you had conflict when Rachel got her servant to sleep with Jacob. David had one of his sons rebel against him and cause Civil War in Israel; Solomon started worshipping the Gods & Goddesses of his foreign wives.

With regard to the New Testament, the more I look at it, the more I am convinced that when Jesus indicated that his followers should be indifferent to earthly attachments, that was to things that would impact on the faith of a believer. Peter's Mother-in-Law was healed by Jesus, and Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead. Jesus certainly cared about family, however, let us not forget that he did not want family superseding the worship of God.

Paul also mentioned that one of the good qualities of a bishop was to be the husband of one wife, and having his children in subjection (I Timothy 3:1-4). Jesus commented in Matthew 19:3-8 about how a man would leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (emphasis mine). Paul and Jesus obviously preached in favour of marriage as well, and also in favour of singular marriage only.

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

The Bible never explicitly indicates that marriage is between one man and one woman, but it implies that it is the ideal. Jesus used the word wife in the singular, and Paul mentioned that a bishop should be husband to one wife.

In terms of the last comment, I have to disagree strongly. One of the things that the Bible is very strong on is homosexual relations. All quotes are from the KJV

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
I Timothy 1:10 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be anything that is contrary to sound doctrine

All imply that homosexuality is among the worst of sins, and then we always have the tale of Sodom and Gommorah where homosexuality (and their attempt to rape God) was among the sins that led to its destruction.

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

About Jonathan and David, other posters have already commented, however, if you look at it, it seems more a friendship. Kissing, for instance, is a common form of greeting in the Middle East; Jesus was betrayed by a kiss from Judas.

The issue there is that in the English, we only have one word for love, while the Greek had at least five different words.

What say you NSG?

I say it's a crock of shit.

A whole hell of a lot of people, who have spent their lives studying the Bible, disagree with these findings.

I say it's a crock of shit.

A whole hell of a lot of people, who have spent their lives studying the Bible, disagree with these findings.

Who would possibly fail to be persuaded by such insight, especially with an erroneous appeal to authority at the end?

But I am shocked, shocked to learn you disagree with the article.

No debate necessary. DC is objectively better due to the Vertigo series. :eek::wink::D

Now can we return to the topic which is: the Religous case for (or against) same-sex marriage?

Utter rubbish. Marvel is far, far superior a comic line.

and then we always have the tale of Sodom and Gommorah where homosexuality (and their attempt to rape God) was among the sins that led to its destruction.

There's not a shred of textual evidence for that. The fact that they wanted to gang-rape Lot's guests would more than suffice, and it's Sodom's lack of hospitality that is referred to elsewhere in the Bible, not its homosexuality.

There's something striking about a code of morality that pays more attention to the same-sex aspect than to the grievous breach of decent treatment implied by violently assaulting visitors to your city.

The issue there is that in the English, we only have one word for love, while the Greek had at least five different words.

1 Samuel was not written in Greek.

Utter rubbish. Marvel is far, far superior a comic line.

That depends on if you're looking at original Marvel or Ultimate.

I don't know, I hear they're got some great serving suggestions for manna in there.

Yeah, but which manna system does the Bible employ? I can't seem to use fireballs, invisibility, or magic missiles, so it's obvious the Bible doesn't use d20 rules.

Does it employ a more tcg approach? Do I have to tap Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy every turn? If so, how many cards can I place in the manna pool each turn?

Does it use the FF magic system? If so which one? Do I have to start out as a black or red mage if I want to learn firaga? Or does it employ the sphere grid? How many experience points do I gain for smiting a nonbeliever?

All in all, the Bible's manna system is very confusing.

Yeah, I took it too far. Forgive the nerdiness.

That depends on if you're looking at original Marvel or Ultimate.

Original, of course.

Yeah, but which manna system does the Bible employ? I can't seem to use fireballs, invisibility, or magic missiles, so it's obvious the Bible doesn't use d20 rules.

Try a read magic spell.

Did I miss an earlier verse? Certainly there's no mention of "loins" there.

I don't have my Tanakh in front of me. I'll try to find what verse I had in mind later; if I am simply mistaken, that will not be the first time.
they make a covenant and Jonathan gives David his stuff.

Including his underwear. And: what kind of "covenant" are they making? They are not signing a treaty or a business contract. It appears to be an oath of lifelong devotion, not unlike a betrothal or marriage vow.
among these items are Jonathan's sword and bow

"Sword" is a common euphemism for "penis" in many ancient cultures. I have also heard it suggested that "bow" here is a euphemism for "butt" (from the shapely curve), but I have not seen any other such ancient usage. Assuming however that the sword and bow are the actual weapons, it is the inclusion of the underwear that clinches it for me.
He's referring to Jonathan's inheritance, which Jonathan has by virtue of "his mother's nakedness" (which is to say, the sexual relations of his mother with Saul that conceived him.)

A later passage makes it more clear what Saul is upset about: when, years later, David inquires whether Jonathan left any survivors, it turns out he did have one child, who was not yet walking when Jonathan was killed. In other words, Jonathan either did not marry or failed to impregnate the woman until after David was expelled from the palace. Jonathan was failing in his duty to procreate, which was especially his duty as the heir. The Hebrew word rendered "confusion" in the King James is a difficult one (and "confusion" did not have its modern English meaning in King James' day) but usually means something more like "undoing" or even "destruction": I would read "you have chosen David to the confusion of your mother's nakedness" as meaning "you are undoing the work your mother did in birthing you, if you do not have children in your turn, but instead screw around with this David."
intense male friendships expressed in affectionate language and behavior are the historical norm.

But nowhere in the Bible do we find another male-male friendship expressed with this repeated insistence on its physicality. If you disbelieve me, try to find a parallel.
Ambiguous at best. You could just as easily understand this passage as referring to David's preference for masculine friendships over the sexual pursuit of women, which makes perfect sense in a male-dominated warrior culture. Or you could interpret it as simply a passionate declaration of love for a dear friend.

Again, try to find any parallel where love for a male is compared with love for a woman. I know of only one such comparison: the Leviticus passage, which everyone agrees is a sexual reference. The author of Samuel just does not share the same attitude as the author of Leviticus.

Utter rubbish. Marvel is far, far superior a comic line.

Nuh uh!

DC 'owns' Sandman. End of story.

In terms of the last comment, I have to disagree strongly. One of the things that the Bible is very strong on is homosexual relations. All quotes are from the KJV

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
I Timothy 1:10 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be anything that is contrary to sound doctrine

All imply that homosexuality is among the worst of sins, and then we always have the tale of Sodom and Gommorah where homosexuality (and their attempt to rape God) was among the sins that led to its destruction.


You make many interesting points, but I object to/am curious about a couple things in particular:

1. Why is it assumed that if homosexual sex is bad, same-sex marriage is necessarily bad? Does that necessarily follow? Isn't non-procreative sex also bad, but we let people that cannot or do not want children to get married, right?

2. If homosexuality is "among the worst of sins," wouldn't it (1) be among the Commandments and/or (2) be mentioned by Jesus himself?

3. Setting aside the question of what the Bible passages in question actually say versus how they are interpreted, what about the problem that Leviticus condemns a wide range of things that we could care less about?

4. Again, setting aside the question of translation, aren't you taking the Timothy quote completely out of context?

5. If, as you quote them, the proper interpretation and translation of these passages are against male homosexual sex, what about lesbians? Can they get married?

Including his underwear.

Clothing, yes. Recall that this is an ancient culture where resources are scarce: the gift of clothing indicates a granting of status and a transfer of wealth. The entire theme of these chapters of 1 Samuel is how David rises high.

It appears to be an oath of lifelong devotion, not unlike a betrothal or marriage vow.

...which can still be a product of devoted platonic love between friends.

"Sword" is a common euphemism for "penis" in many ancient cultures.

I'm fairly certain it is not used in that way anywhere else in the Bible.

Assuming however that the sword and bow are the actual weapons, it is the inclusion of the underwear that clinches it for me.

Why? Nudity is not inherently sexual.

Jonathan was failing in his duty to procreate, which was especially his duty as the heir.

You're ignoring the context, and your interpretation makes no sense anyway.

Saul's basic problem is that Samuel told him earlier that his line would no longer hold the monarchy. His jealousy of David is rooted in that fact: he realizes that David's line is intended to replace his. That is why he is angry at Jonathan: Jonathan's efforts to protect David are a direct threat to the continued rule of Saul's line.

Saul does not say, "As long as you love the son of Jesse, your inheritance will not be established." He says, "As long as the son of Jesse lives, your inheritance will not be established."

But nowhere in the Bible do we find another male-male friendship expressed with this repeated insistence on its physicality.

There is no "insistence on its physicality." There is only a reference to Jonathan's gifting of David with items of clothing and weaponry.

Again, try to find any parallel where love for a male is compared with love for a woman.

A statement without parallel doesn't automatically have the interpretation you prefer.

I know of only one such comparison: the Leviticus passage, which everyone agrees is a sexual reference.

The Leviticus passage says nothing about "love"; its reference is to lying with a man as opposed to lying with a woman. "Shakhav" and its various conjugations are a routine Biblical euphemism for sex that appears repeatedly elsewhere.

There is no "insistence on its physicality." There is only a reference to Jonathan's gifting of David with items of clothing and weaponry.


That and the red hot smooches.


A statement without parallel doesn't automatically have the interpretation you prefer.


So, the sword is a penis?

That and the red hot smooches.

Right, and when Abraham washes the feet of the angels back in Genesis, it's obviously a reference to foot fetish sex and not a common indicator of hospitality.

So, the sword is a penis?

"Sword" is used repeatedly throughout the Bible in its literal meaning and in the figurative sense of battle and killing. Not once (to my knowledge) is it used in a sense remotely sexual.

I really wonder while people keep bringing up the tale of Sodom and Gommorah in arguements about homosexuality concidering its about what the ancient Hebrews, greeks and others concidered one of the most serious crimes in existance, the violation of the guest host relationship. To many ancient cultures the violations of hospitality were horendious crimes that were worthy of divine punishment and in stories often were.

Another things about the bible is sometimes its counterdicts it self like Jacob marrying two sisters one after another yet if you read futher along in later books, it prohibtis bigomy and forbids marrying an inlaw as incest. Part of this is the fact the old testament isn't just an relgious text, its also the history of the hebrew/Jewish people and is thus written over many centuries, not all at one time.

Clothing, yes. Recall that this is an ancient culture where resources are scarce: the gift of clothing indicates a granting of status and a transfer of wealth.
The nudity taboo in the Hebrew culture was extreme. Taking off all your clothes was something that was just not done.
I'm fairly certain it is not used in that way anywhere else in the Bible.
Lots of things occur once only in the Bible; we understand them by considering parallels in other literatures from related languages. The entire relationship between David and Jonathan, under either your theory or mine, is one of a kind: I'm fairly certain that taking off and giving away all your clothes, as a "transfer of wealth", never occurs anywhere else in the Bible; two male friends hugging passionately is not described anywhere else; two male friends making a "covenant" of lifelong devotion is not described anywhere else; and so on.
Why? Nudity is not inherently sexual.
To the Hebrews, it was. "Uncovering [someone's] nakedness" is a common way of indicating sex, about as common as the euphemism "know" and more common than "lie with".
You're ignoring the context
I am giving MORE of the context.
That is why he is angry at Jonathan: Jonathan's efforts to protect David are a direct threat to the continued rule of Saul's line.
Jonathan's failure to procreate meant that there was no line of his to have any possibility of continuing to rule.
There is no "insistence on its physicality." There is only a reference to Jonathan's gifting of David with items of clothing and weaponry.
And the repeated references to their intense physical contact.
The Leviticus passage says nothing about "love"; its reference is to lying with a man as opposed to lying with a woman. "Shakhav" and its various conjugations are a routine Biblical euphemism for sex that appears repeatedly elsewhere.So is the "love" verb.
And the Leviticus passage is the ONLY other passage where relations with a man (of any kind) and relations with a woman are paralleled.

The nudity taboo in the Hebrew culture was extreme.

Really? Do you have any evidence for that?

"Uncovering [someone's] nakedness" is a common way of indicating sex

...and like all euphemisms, its euphemistic meaning depends on the specific phrase used--a phrase that does not appear in the verse.

Jonathan's failure to procreate meant that there was no line of his to have any possibility of continuing to rule.

Again, that makes no sense in the context of Saul's actual words or Saul's actual worries.

So is the "love" verb.

No, it isn't. Do you have an example?

And the Leviticus passage is the ONLY other passage where relations with a man (of any kind) and relations with a woman are paralleled.

So?

Really? Do you have any evidence for that?
I thought the extreme Mideastern aversion to nudity (hardly unique to the Hebrews) was common knowledge. But sticking to the Biblical text, explain the story of Noah and the vinyard for me.
...and like all euphemisms, its euphemistic meaning depends on the specific phrase used
No, it doesn't. Its euphemistic meaning depends on the cultural understanding that you never ever take off all your clothes in front of another person except for one purpose.
Again, that makes no sense in the context of Saul's actual words or Saul's actual worries.
Explain the "confusion of your mother's nakedness" words. And: you don't think Jonathan's failure to have any children was any part of Saul's worries? I think you are missing 99% of the story here.

[So is the "love" verb.]
No, it isn't. Do you have an example?
That's how it's ALWAYS used. English translation somewhat obscures this as we have multiple Hebrew verbs translated by the same "love".
So?
You can't have things both ways: you disbelieve that "sword" could be a euphemism because there isn't a parallel; and yet you can give me no parallel for a comparison of male-male love to male-female love that is "platonic". Go outside the Bible if you like: find anywhere in literature where a man's "love" for another man is compared to his love for women, that isn't a sexual reference.

But sticking to the Biblical text, explain the story of Noah and the vinyard for me.

Fair enough, but we actually see no direct reference to Jonathan's nakedness in the text. There is not even any clear indication that Jonathan is getting naked in front of David.

What we see instead is the following progression:

"4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

5 And David went out; whithersoever Saul sent him, he had good success; and Saul set him over the men of war; and it was good in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants."

As I have said, in context, it comes across as an indicator both of Jonathan's aid to David (he gives David the tools he needs for success in war) and of David's raised status (he gets clothing and weaponry from royalty). It also has a figurative role, in that it represents the fact that David, not Jonathan, will ultimately inherit Saul's throne. The phrasing steers clear of any sexual euphemism: there is no direct reference to nakedness, to lying, to knowing, or to anything of the sort.

Explain the "confusion of your mother's nakedness" words.

Again, it's a reference to inheritance: by supporting David, who poses the central threat to Saul's royal line, Jonathan is undermining his own inheritance.

Recall that Saul says, "As long as the son of Jesse lives." It is David's mere presence that is the fundamental threat, not David's relationship with Jonathan.

And: you don't think Jonathan's failure to have any children was any part of Saul's worries?

When he has realized he has lost the divine mandate, that David is his intended successor, and that due to David's popularity and divine support, David poses a direct immediate threat both to Saul's own power and to Saul's son's establishment as king? I'd say it's not near the top of his worries.

That's how it's ALWAYS used. English translation somewhat obscures this as we have multiple Hebrew verbs translated by the same "love".

The references between David and Jonathan use the verb "ahav", which is not a sexual euphemism. We see it referenced with respect to the love parents have for their children, for instance.

you disbelieve that "sword" could be a euphemism because there isn't a parallel;

...and because the literal interpretation is more compelling both by being literal and by being more suited to the overall martial context of the David story.

Go outside the Bible if you like: find anywhere in literature where a man's "love" for another man is compared to his love for women, that isn't a sexual reference.

I can't think of any particular one, but, again, a statement without parallel does not obviously have your particular interpretation.

Furthermore, there is a definite tradition in male-dominated cultures, persisting to this day, of strong social bonds between men that exclude women: it is the whole "bros before hos" mentality. We would expect this to be especially true of David, who, despite having a clear sexual desire for women (Bathsheba being an indicative example), nevertheless doesn't deal all that well with them (Michal). His relationship with Jonathan, on the other hand, is consistent and strong.

Its really quite simple:

Christians, by and large, oppose gay marriage because the bible expressly condemns homosexual activity (at least male on male activity) and giving government recognition to an activity that is condemned by God in their world view is tantamount to the government condoning such activity and, again in their world view, the government should not condone or authorize activity that God has condemned. Love is irrelevant to the issue for most Christians who oppose gay marriage. The fact 2 men/women love each other is beside the point. They are seeking governmental and legal recognition for activities that are considered sinful and they should not be allowed to have that recognition.

Its really quite simple:

Christians, by and large, oppose gay marriage because the bible expressly condemns homosexual activity (at least male on male activity) and giving government recognition to an activity that is condemned by God in their world view is tantamount to the government condoning such activity and, again in their world view, the government should not condone or authorize activity that God has condemned. Love is irrelevant to the issue for most Christians who oppose gay marriage. The fact 2 men/women love each other is beside the point. They are seeking governmental and legal recognition for activities that are considered sinful and they should not be allowed to have that recognition.
I think that sums up that group's stance very neatly.

Unfortunately for them, it crashes into two major obstacles: (1) the First Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits the government from following their religious beliefs; and (2) the fact that the US is a diverse society in which there are millions of citizens with views that differ from theirs, which creates pressure for the government to obey the First Amendment.

But that is not really the point of this thread, which is merely about whether the proposed Biblical argument FOR gay marriage holds water.

Nuh uh!

DC 'owns' Sandman. End of story.

Marvel superhero comics are, broadly speaking, better than DC superhero comics. But it depends on the individual writers and artists more than anything else.

There's not a shred of textual evidence for that. The fact that they wanted to gang-rape Lot's guests would more than suffice, and it's Sodom's lack of hospitality that is referred to elsewhere in the Bible, not its homosexuality.

There's something striking about a code of morality that pays more attention to the same-sex aspect than to the grievous breach of decent treatment implied by violently assaulting visitors to your city.


The lack of hospitality is mentioned in Ezekiel, however, consider the following part of the verse

"and committed abomination before me" (Ezekiel 16:50)

What does Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 refer to homosexuality as - an abomination. Lack of hospitality was never called an abomination under the Levitical laws, so that would not have been the abomination referred to.

1 Samuel was not written in Greek.

I know, the point still stands though, you have multiple meanings for the word love. Love doesn't not imply sex; I love my family - but that is a familial love, not a sexual love; I love my friends - but that is a platonic love, not a sexual love.

You make many interesting points, but I object to/am curious about a couple things in particular:

1. Why is it assumed that if homosexual sex is bad, same-sex marriage is necessarily bad? Does that necessarily follow? Isn't non-procreative sex also bad, but we let people that cannot or do not want children to get married, right?

That is an interesting point that you raise, because aside from Onan, non-procreative sex is not mentioned at all in the Bible. In saying that though, I am increasingly of the view that all male/female sex has the intention of procreation - BUT - that intention is the natural instinct intention and doesn't necessarily have any relationship with the intentions of the couple (if you want to know more, I'll explain my line of thought)

2. If homosexuality is "among the worst of sins," wouldn't it (1) be among the Commandments and/or (2) be mentioned by Jesus himself?

On point 1, it depends on how you define adultery (at its broadest definition, it could mean all sex outside of marriage). On point 2, Jesus sometimes reiterated the Law, but only when necessary. Since homosexuality was very rare, such an incident never arose.

3. Setting aside the question of what the Bible passages in question actually say versus how they are interpreted, what about the problem that Leviticus condemns a wide range of things that we could care less about?

I agree, that is an interesting discussion. The shellfish argument doesn't work, because the food laws were specifically repealled. One would have to examine each individual bit, but nonetheless, many of these condemnations have disappeared from Western thought because we have been numbed to them.

4. Again, setting aside the question of translation, aren't you taking the Timothy quote completely out of context?

No, the Timothy quote lists who the law was made for, and it was made for sinners. Listing homosexuality there says one thing

It is a sin.

5. If, as you quote them, the proper interpretation and translation of these passages are against male homosexual sex, what about lesbians? Can they get married?

A very interesting point that has not been addressed at all, and in my view needs to be addressed.

"and committed abomination before me" (Ezekiel 16:50)

Homosexuality is far from the only sin referred to as "abomination" in the Bible.

Since homosexuality was very rare

No, it wasn't. Philo wrote at about the same time, and he whined about it quite a bit.

I think that sums up that group's stance very neatly.

Unfortunately for them, it crashes into two major obstacles: (1) the First Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits the government from following their religious beliefs; and (2) the fact that the US is a diverse society in which there are millions of citizens with views that differ from theirs, which creates pressure for the government to obey the First Amendment.

But that is not really the point of this thread, which is merely about whether the proposed Biblical argument FOR gay marriage holds water.

1. Actually the government can enact laws that follow a religious belief (murder and rape laws for example "follow" religious beliefs). They just can't justify or premise a law on that religious belief. They can't ban gay marriage "cause it says in the bible. . . " They can ban it on other grounds however. If it is banned on secular grounds, it is following the religious beliefs, its just not impermissibly based on them.

2. As noted, the government can easily obey the 1st Amendment and still ban gay marriage as long as there is a non-religious, rational basis, for doing so. The pressure that is being exerted is, in effect, arguing that the government does not have a non-religious, secular, rational basis upon which to base such a ban. I don't think there is much of an argument that banning gay marriage is a 1st Amendment violation. I think the focus is on equal protection and due process issues.

I think you understand the distinction, I just wanted it clear here for people who might read this who wouldn't. (Oh, and before our other resident lawyers weigh in, I realize that the "rational basis" test is not the test that is applied to marriage which has been declared a fundamental right. I'm using the phrase in a common parlance meaning and not the strictly legal one).

As to your point about the point of the thread, I don't think the argument holds water for the simple reason that I don't think love has anything to do with marriage. People fall in and out of love all the time, people love other people whom they would never consider marriage too. Marriage is a partnership arrangement in which love is ideally a part, but in which respect and tolerance and compatibility with another person and their lifestyle, goals, choices, beliefs, etc. is more important if the marriage is to be a sustainable one the provides and promotes the mental and physical well being of the partners and any children that might be involved. One reason our divorce rate in this country is so high is because we have promoted the idea that you have to love the person you're married too. When people fall out of love, when the "romance dies" then the marriage dies with it cause "they don't love him/her anymore."

1. Actually the government can enact laws that follow a religious belief (murder and rape laws for example "follow" religious beliefs). They just can't justify or premise a law on that religious belief. They can't ban gay marriage "cause it says in the bible. . . " They can ban it on other grounds however. If it is banned on secular grounds, it is following the religious beliefs, its just not impermissibly based on them.

2. As noted, the government can easily obey the 1st Amendment and still ban gay marriage as long as there is a non-religious, rational basis, for doing so. The pressure that is being exerted is, in effect, arguing that the government does not have a non-religious, secular, rational basis upon which to base such a ban. I don't think there is much of an argument that banning gay marriage is a 1st Amendment violation. I think the focus is on equal protection and due process issues.

I think you understand the distinction, I just wanted it clear here for people who might read this who wouldn't. (Oh, and before our other resident lawyers weigh in, I realize that the "rational basis" test is not the test that is applied to marriage which has been declared a fundamental right. I'm using the phrase in a common parlance meaning and not the strictly legal one).

As to your point about the point of the thread, I don't think the argument holds water for the simple reason that I don't think love has anything to do with marriage. People fall in and out of love all the time, people love other people whom they would never consider marriage too. Marriage is a partnership arrangement in which love is ideally a part, but in which respect and tolerance and compatibility with another person and their lifestyle, goals, choices, beliefs, etc. is more important if the marriage is to be a sustainable one the provides and promotes the mental and physical well being of the partners and any children that might be involved. One reason our divorce rate in this country is so high is because we have promoted the idea that you have to love the person you're married too. When people fall out of love, when the "romance dies" then the marriage dies with it cause "they don't love him/her anymore."

Fair points. But what about the bolded doesn't apply in a same-sex marriage?

I agree, that is an interesting discussion. The shellfish argument doesn't work, because the food laws were specifically repealled. One would have to examine each individual bit, but nonetheless, many of these condemnations have disappeared from Western thought because we have been numbed to them.

Again, this all assumes one accepts the translation of Leviticus to mean that male homosexual sex is an abomination.

Regardless, I don't know why other than disingenuosness people keep referring to the "shellfish argument." That trivializes the problem with Leviticus raised in this thread:

Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?




No, the Timothy quote lists who the law was made for, and it was made for sinners. Listing homosexuality there says one thing

It is a sin.


Assuming one translates that passage to include simple male homosexuality, by that same passage the law is made for (it is a sin to be) anyone who is lawless or disobedient, whoremongers and/or the "sexually immoral," "menstealers," liars, or anything that is "contrary to sound doctrine."

1 Timothy is not a great guide to morality, regardless. In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul preaches:

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety

Similarly, in 1 Timothy 6, Paul teaches that slaves should be respectful of their masters.

Fair points. But what about the bolded doesn't apply in a same-sex marriage?
Those do apply to same sex marriage, I would agree. My point is regarding the article itself which is claiming that biblically speaking same sex marriage should be allowed if a gay couple loves each other. I'm saying I don't buy that premise because I don't think love is the basis on which a marriage should be based. It should be based on the items you highlighted in my text. If a marriage is based on them, then "love" becomes irrelevant to the equation and the idea that the bible, via its definition of love, "requires' Christians to recognize gay marriage as valid becomes a fallacy.

In other words, since I believe love should have next to nothing to do with the decision to marry, I think the entire idea that the bibical requirement we love people means Christians must accept/acknowledge gay marriage is a non-starter. Love and marriage are not related and the article is premised on the fallacy that they are (IMO).

1. Actually the government can enact laws that follow a religious belief (murder and rape laws for example "follow" religious beliefs).
Debateable. Many god-botherers like to claim that this is so, but those same laws can also "follow" entirely secular philosophical principles as well, so their claims mean little unless they can bring actual documentation to prove that religion is the source or guide for the laws in question, which they can't.

And of course, such an assertion begs the question of WHICH religious belief? Because the First Amendment stops the government from showing preference to any one belief over others, yet the anti-gay-marriage crowd who cite the Bible as their justification want the government to show preference to their religious belief over all those others which do not want to ban gay marriage.

So regardless of whether their claims to being the source that inspires people to make rules against killing each other are nonsense or not (which they are, btw), they still don't get to get their way on this issue, thanks to that pesky Constitution.

They just can't justify or premise a law on that religious belief. They can't ban gay marriage "cause it says in the bible. . . "
That's true, they can't.

They can ban it on other grounds however. If it is banned on secular grounds, it is following the religious beliefs, its just not impermissibly based on them.
Only there are no other grounds. Or rather, there is one other ground, but it is also impermissible for the government. The only grounds upon which arguments against gay marriage are based are religion or bigotry (with or without religion). The government is prohibited from supporting either of those.

2. As noted, the government can easily obey the 1st Amendment and still ban gay marriage as long as there is a non-religious, rational basis, for doing so.
As pointed out above, no it can't because there are no non-religious, rational bases for banning gay marriage. The only bases for banning gay marriage are religious (violates First Amendment) or bigoted (violates 14th Amendment and is arguably not rational).

The pressure that is being exerted is, in effect, arguing that the government does not have a non-religious, secular, rational basis upon which to base such a ban.
That's true.

I don't think there is much of an argument that banning gay marriage is a 1st Amendment violation. I think the focus is on equal protection and due process issues.
I think equal protection and due process apply most directly to the issue, but the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment comes into play specifically in those cases where opponents to gay marriage cite the Bible as the reason why the government should give them what they want.

I think you understand the distinction, I just wanted it clear here for people who might read this who wouldn't. (Oh, and before our other resident lawyers weigh in, I realize that the "rational basis" test is not the test that is applied to marriage which has been declared a fundamental right. I'm using the phrase in a common parlance meaning and not the strictly legal one).

As to your point about the point of the thread, I don't think the argument holds water for the simple reason that I don't think love has anything to do with marriage.
No, but according to Christians, it does have something to do with religion. So for the purposes of countering a religious argument, I think it is valid.

Two caveats:
1) I do not think this counter argument is actually applicable to gay marriage, but rather it is applicable as a targeted countermeasure to specific citations of the Bible. Sort of, if the one guy says, "The Bible says THIS!!!", the counter is, "Oh, yeah? Well, the Bible also says THIS!!! Now what have you got to say, Smarty McBiblepants?"

2) I am not sufficiently versed in Bible stuff to determine myself whether the specific proposed argument is strong enough to stand up under fire.

However, that said, I have heard many liberal Christians make the "love" argument in favor of allowing gays the right to marry, on religious grounds -- god being love and all that. Their argument seems to be that it is more important for Christians to mind how they live their Christian lives than to tell others how to live their lives, I guess. That seems to have merit to me. It's not really attacking the issue of gay marriage so much as the use of the Bible in that debate.

People fall in and out of love all the time, people love other people whom they would never consider marriage too. Marriage is a partnership arrangement in which love is ideally a part, but in which respect and tolerance and compatibility with another person and their lifestyle, goals, choices, beliefs, etc. is more important if the marriage is to be a sustainable one the provides and promotes the mental and physical well being of the partners and any children that might be involved. One reason our divorce rate in this country is so high is because we have promoted the idea that you have to love the person you're married too. When people fall out of love, when the "romance dies" then the marriage dies with it cause "they don't love him/her anymore."
Well, as TCT said, that has nothing to do with the issue because there is no difference in that way between hetero and gay relationships.

Those do apply to same sex marriage, I would agree. My point is regarding the article itself which is claiming that biblically speaking same sex marriage should be allowed if a gay couple loves each other. I'm saying I don't buy that premise because I don't think love is the basis on which a marriage should be based. It should be based on the items you highlighted in my text. If a marriage is based on them, then "love" becomes irrelevant to the equation and the idea that the bible, via its definition of love, "requires' Christians to recognize gay marriage as valid becomes a fallacy.

In other words, since I believe love should have next to nothing to do with the decision to marry, I think the entire idea that the bibical requirement we love people means Christians must accept/acknowledge gay marriage is a non-starter. Love and marriage are not related and the article is premised on the fallacy that they are (IMO).
But the application of that argument that I have heard is that, if Christians are going to love their neighbors as they love themselves and treat others as they would have others treat them, then they should not go about denying legal rights to segments of the population on morals grounds because that would be judgmental, and they should not judge lest they be judged themselves.

To me, that sounds like a sound argument. It is not an argument that justifies gay marriage. Rather it is an argument that criticizes opposition to gay marriage.

Only there are no other grounds. Or rather, there is one other ground, but it is also impermissible for the government. The only grounds upon which arguments against gay marriage are based are religion or bigotry (with or without religion). The government is prohibited from supporting either of those.
I disagree with this claim. There are other grounds upon which to base an opposition to gay marriage that have nothing to do with religion or bigotry.

That, however, is an argument for another thread.

Well, as TCT said, that has nothing to do with the issue because there is no difference in that way between hetero and gay relationships. is has everything to do with the issue since the point of the thread is to argue whether the commandment that the biblical command that we "love one another" requires a recognition and acceptance of gay marriage by Christians holds water and I am arguing it does not hold water because love and marriage are not, in my view, related to each other and the article has a flawed premise as a result of that belief.

But the application of that argument that I have heard is that, if Christians are going to love their neighbors as they love themselves and treat others as they would have others treat them, then they should not go about denying legal rights to segments of the population on morals grounds because that would be judgmental, and they should not judge lest they be judged themselves.

To me, that sounds like a sound argument. It is not an argument that justifies gay marriage. Rather it is an argument that criticizes opposition to gay marriage.
granting of a legal right =/= love

I love my sister, but I'm not going to grant her a legal right to marry a dog.

I can love someone in a christian manner and still deny them a legal right. They are not related to each other. That is my point.

I disagree with this claim. There are other grounds upon which to base an opposition to gay marriage that have nothing to do with religion or bigotry.

That, however, is an argument for another thread.
It is for another thread. Some day I will enjoy showing how very obviously wrong you are about it.

is has everything to do with the issue since the point of the thread is to argue whether the commandment that the biblical command that we "love one another" requires a recognition and acceptance of gay marriage by Christians holds water and I am arguing it does not hold water because love and marriage are not, in my view, related to each other and the article has a flawed premise as a result of that belief.
But that's not how the argument is applied, generally. It does not ask Christians to do anything in regards to gays at all except behave in a Christian manner, which according to this argument is non-judgmental, i.e. not denying them legal rights and making them lesser citizens just because of this private matter.

The "love" referenced in the "love each other" argument is not the love a married couple are imagined to feel for each other, but the love Christians are enjoined by their religion to feel for all human beings. Or at least, they're supposed to act as if they feel it.

So the "love" in the argument has nothing to do with marriage, but everything to do with Christianity.

Or we can, like, not put so much stock in ancient collections of stories.

Therrrrrre we go!!

It is for another thread. Some day I will enjoy showing how very obviously wrong you are about it.


But that's not how the argument is applied, generally. It does not ask Christians to do anything in regards to gays at all except behave in a Christian manner, which according to this argument is non-judgmental, i.e. not denying them legal rights and making them lesser citizens just because of this private matter.

The "love" referenced in the "love each other" argument is not the love a married couple are imagined to feel for each other, but the love Christians are enjoined by their religion to feel for all human beings. Or at least, they're supposed to act as if they feel it.

So the "love" in the argument has nothing to do with marriage, but everything to do with Christianity.
granting of a legal right =/= love
denial of a legal right =/= hate

granting of a legal right =/= love
Precisely, which is why you are completely wrong in your interpretation of the "love" argument.

I love my sister, but I'm not going to grant her a legal right to marry a dog.
Either fortunately or sadly, that's not up to you, unless you are the governor of the state in which your sister lives.

I can love someone in a christian manner and still deny them a legal right. They are not related to each other. That is my point.
And your point is what the "love" argument counters. You seem to think that your point is universally accepted, or that you have proven it, but neither is true. It is a matter of deep debate, and you have merely predicated your argument on the assertion of it without actually supporting the sense of it in any way.

granting of a legal right =/= love
denial of a legal right =/= hate
I will be vastly entertained to watch you try to find anywhere in my argument where I said they were.

At this point, you are merely throwing more light on your complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the "love" argument. How many times do I have to tell you that the "love" in question is not about the law or the gays or marriage or any of that stuff. It's about how Christians are supposed to guide and limit their treatment of other people.

Precisely, which is why you are completely wrong in your interpretation of the "love" argument.But you just argued that Christian love means they should not deny the legal right to marry to gays didn't you? If love has nothing to do with the granting or denial of legal rights then your argument is flawed. That is my point. It is possible to love in a christian manner and still deny a legal right. You are claiming the opposite.


Either fortunately or sadly, that's not up to you, unless you are the governor of the state in which your sister lives. true, and it is not up to me whether gays can marry or not. But a ban of them doing so has nothing to do with love. It is a legal and political decision and love is beside the point.


And your point is what the "love" argument counters. You seem to think that your point is universally accepted, or that you have proven it, but neither is true. It is a matter of deep debate, and you have merely predicated your argument on the assertion of it without actually supporting the sense of it in any way.

My point is that christian love has -0- to do with the granting of the legal right for gays to marry and it should have -0- to do with any denial of that right as well.
If a government grants a right to gays to marry, then Christians bound by the rule "render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" should respect and accept the marriage because the government has sanctioned it. That doesn't mean they can't actively work in a manner that seeks to have the law changed. It is possible for Christians to love homosexuals and still deny them the legal right to marry IMO. The article (and seemingly you) take the position that it is not possible to love in christian manner and deny this legal right. I say the article is incorrect in this regard.

I can love a serial rapist, that doesn't mean if given the choice to legalize rape I should do so. A Christian can love a homosexual in a Christian manner and still believe a denial of a legal right is in order.

I will be vastly entertained to watch you try to find anywhere in my argument where I said they were.
Ask and you shall receive:

But that's not how the argument is applied, generally. It does not ask Christians to do anything in regards to gays at all except behave in a Christian manner, which according to this argument is non-judgmental, i.e. not denying them legal rights and making them lesser citizens just because of this private matter.

bolded and underlined for emphasis. So by your argument, if I deny a gay person the legal right to marry I'm acting in an unchristian manner.

Ask and you shall receive:



bolded and underlined for emphasis.

Wrong. The underlined part of the bolded part does not equate denying rights with hate. It equates it with being judgmental. Nor does it imply that granting rights means love. It only implies that, in order to not be judgmental, Christians should not mess with others' civil rights on morals grounds.

EDIT: Seriously, Wow, I do understand my own arguments.

By the way Muravyets, just so there is no misunderstanding, I could care less if gays get married or not. It makes no nevermind at all to me. If it came up for a vote in my state like Prop. 8 did in California, I'd probably just abstain from the vote because I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just arguing that I disagree with the article and its premise that Christian love requires recognition and acceptance of gay marriage. I don't think it does.

But you just argued that Christian love means they should not deny the legal right to marry to gays didn't you? If love has nothing to do with the granting or denial of legal rights then your argument is flawed. That is my point. It is possible to love in a christian manner and still deny a legal right. You are claiming the opposite.
No, what I argued is that Christian love requires them not to be judgmental. And as the religion-based arguments against the civil institution of gay marriage are inherently judgmental that means Christians are acting against the principle of Christian love by involving themselves in that aspect of the law.

Also your goalposts are drifting. Do you think you will manage to trip me up by changing your own argument? YOU argued that the "love" in the "love" argument was the love within marriage, which you said was irrelevant to all questions of legal marriage.

I said that you were wrong because the "love" in the "love" argument was not about within-marriage love.

Now you want to abandon your own original point and somehow prove that Christians can judge others and still be acting as good Christians on the grounds of "what's love got to do with it"? Sorry, Wow, you fail on both points.

1) "Love" within marriage is not the issue and never was; and

2) I do not buy the argument that Christians can break their own rules and still claim to be acting in accord with their faith AND cite the rule book to do it.

true, and it is not up to me whether gays can marry or not. But a ban of them doing so has nothing to do with love. It is a legal and political decision and love is beside the point.
Yes, but you still don't understand why.

And you are also still ignoring the point that the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature and therefore unconstitutional. If it makes it any easier for you, love has nothing to do with that, either.

My point is that christian love has -0- to do with the granting of the legal right for gays to marry and it should have -0- to do with any denial of that right as well.
If a government grants a right to gays to marry, then Christians bound by the rule "render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" should respect and accept the marriage because the government has sanctioned it. That doesn't mean they can't actively work in a manner that seeks to have the law changed. It is possible for Christians to love homosexuals and still deny them the legal right to marry IMO. The article (and seemingly you) take the position that it is not possible to love in christian manner and deny this legal right. I say the article is incorrect in this regard.

I can love a serial rapist, that doesn't mean if given the choice to legalize rape I should do so. A Christian can love a homosexual in a Christian manner and still believe a denial of a legal right is in order.
Horseshit. What you're doing is arguing in favor of Christians ignoring their own rule book in regard to their own behavior while at the same time trying to apply it to other people's behavior.

There's a word for that kind of thing. I believe it was a word Jesus Christ was quoted as using himself. It's "hypocrisy." Also not something the rule book says Christians should do, but I guess, according to your argument, they don't have to worry about that as long as there's a chance they'll get their way on something in the government.

EDIT: Also, fyi, your habit of using sex crimes and severe deviations as examples in a discussion about gay marriage is getting to be offensive. So far in this conversation, you have used examples of bestiality and rape to illustrate your points. Being gay is not a crime and it is not a perversion and it does not involve non-consensual behaviors. Cut it out, thanks.

The lack of hospitality is mentioned in Ezekiel, however, consider the following part of the verse

"and committed abomination before me" (Ezekiel 16:50)

What does Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 refer to homosexuality as - an abomination. Lack of hospitality was never called an abomination under the Levitical laws, so that would not have been the abomination referred to.


It might be worth pointin out a couple of things.

First - the 'homosexuality' references in Leviticus are far from the only sins referred to as 'abomination'.

Second - there are two types of abomination - literal abomination, which means the person or thing is literally 'made dirty' (and which can be 'treated' by cleansing in water), and 'ritual abomination' which makes one 'ritually unclean' - which can also be 'treated'.

Having sex with a menstruating woman is 'abomination' because it makes you literally unclean, but it can be 'cured' with washing.

Dietary or sexual 'abomination' makes you 'ritually unclean', which means you need to be ritually cleansed.

Something to think about, perhaps. 'Abomination' perhaps doesn't mean what you think it means.


That is an interesting point that you raise, because aside from Onan, non-procreative sex is not mentioned at all in the Bible.


And Onan's sin wasn't his non-procreative sex, it was disobedience.


No, the Timothy quote lists who the law was made for, and it was made for sinners. Listing homosexuality there says one thing

It is a sin.


Sex outside of marriage is a sin. 'Gay' OR 'straight' sex.

We absolve this sin by marrying.

Nowhere does it say gay MARRIAGE is a sin.

Logically, then - we should marry homosexual couples so that they can stop sinning.

By the way Muravyets, just so there is no misunderstanding, I could care less if gays get married or not. It makes no nevermind at all to me. If it came up for a vote in my state like Prop. 8 did in California, I'd probably just abstain from the vote because I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just arguing that I disagree with the article and its premise that Christian love requires recognition and acceptance of gay marriage. I don't think it does.
Dante assigned a special circle of hell for the Neutrals, those who abstained or refused to take sides when decision was called for. They were condemned to follow a blank flag over shifting sands while being eaten alive by maggots and other bugs. When people's civil rights are at stake, I do not think abstention is anything to brag about.

I'll be honest with you: I don't really believe you are neutral. The subtly insulting language with which you talk about gayness plus your convoluted arguments seeking to justify the anti-gay position or at least let it off the hook of various criticisms suggets otherwise to me. But I don't really care about that. I don't have to have you declare a stance in order to take apart your arguments.

Wrong. The underlined part of the bolded part does not equate denying rights with hate. It equates it with being judgmental. Nor does it imply that granting rights means love. It only implies that, in order to not be judgmental, Christians should not mess with others' civil rights on morals grounds.

EDIT: Seriously, Wow, I do understand my own arguments.
If that is what you meant then I apologize for my misunderstanding. The article still argues though that Christian love requires a recognition of the legal right to marry and I do not agree with that premise. Christian love does not require recognition of any such legal right.

What it does require, however, that a Christian should not judge a homosexual person as a "bad" or "immoral" person, I would agree with that premise. It does require that in personal interactions a gay person be afforded the same treatment that the Christian would afford anybody else. But it does not imply or require recognition of a broader, societal right to marry. It requires recognition and acceptance of the marriage if the society has chosen to permit it. But it does not require support for society's decision to permit it. It requires I treat a gay couple that has been married in accordance with a societal rule that permits gay marriage the same way I would treat a hetero couple. It does not mean that I must support their right to be married or agree they should have that right.

If that is what you meant then I apologize for my misunderstanding. The article still argues though that Christian love requires a recognition of the legal right to marry and I do not agree with that premise. Christian love does not require recognition of any such legal right.

What it does require, however, that a Christian should not judge a homosexual person as a "bad" or "immoral" person, I would agree with that premise. It does require that in personal interactions a gay person be afforded the same treatment that the Christian would afford anybody else. But it does not imply or require recognition of a broader, societal right to marry. It requires recognition and acceptance of the marriage if the society has chosen to permit it. But it does not require support for society's decision to permit it. It requires I treat a gay couple that has been married in accordance with a societal rule that permits gay marriage the same way I would treat a hetero couple. It does not mean that I must support their right to be married or agree they should have that right.
All that is true, but it does not justify Christians actively interfering with society's decisions about gay marriage (i.e. not rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) and claiming their Christianity as their justification for that interference -- especially as that interference has no effect but to harm people against whom they have no objection except a religiously motivated moral one.

It is that interference that, in my view, violates the Christian principle, as I understand it.

It might be worth pointin out a couple of things.

First - the 'homosexuality' references in Leviticus are far from the only sins referred to as 'abomination'.

Second - there are two types of abomination - literal abomination, which means the person or thing is literally 'made dirty' (and which can be 'treated' by cleansing in water), and 'ritual abomination' which makes one 'ritually unclean' - which can also be 'treated'.

Having sex with a menstruating woman is 'abomination' because it makes you literally unclean, but it can be 'cured' with washing.

Dietary or sexual 'abomination' makes you 'ritually unclean', which means you need to be ritually cleansed.

Something to think about, perhaps. 'Abomination' perhaps doesn't mean what you think it means.


Doesn't mean what you think it means either.

Whenever the bible calls something an abomination, it's an insult usually meant to imply that pagans do it so it's bad. Most of the stuff it calls abominations are sins outright. Very rarely does doing any of this make one "unclean", because that would be redundant.

Whenever the bible mentions being "unclean" it means ritually unclean. Some of the stuff that makes you ritually unclean also makes you literally dirty, but that's beside the point. Most of the time the bible calls stuff "unclean", it's not a sin, it means the person who did it would have to go through various procedures that usually involved washing to be clean again. The only reason it was a bad thing is that an unclean person couldn't go into the temple (if I'm remembering this right).


And Onan's sin wasn't his non-procreative sex, it was disobedience.


Bit of both; it was not having kids with his brother's wife who he'd married specifically to have kids with, because it was expected of him.



Sex outside of marriage is a sin. 'Gay' OR 'straight' sex.

We absolve this sin by marrying.

Nowhere does it say gay MARRIAGE is a sin.

Logically, then - we should marry homosexual couples so that they can stop sinning.
I've never been able to find the verse that says sex outside of marriage is a sin. (I mean, of course it's all over the NT but Paul seems to base it off the OT, and for Jesus it mostly seems to be a personal preference)

No, what I argued is that Christian love requires them not to be judgmental. And as the religion-based arguments against the civil institution of gay marriage are inherently judgmental that means Christians are acting against the principle of Christian love by involving themselves in that aspect of the law.

Also your goalposts are drifting. Do you think you will manage to trip me up by changing your own argument? YOU argued that the "love" in the "love" argument was the love within marriage, which you said was irrelevant to all questions of legal marriage.

I said that you were wrong because the "love" in the "love" argument was not about within-marriage love.

Now you want to abandon your own original point and somehow prove that Christians can judge others and still be acting as good Christians on the grounds of "what's love got to do with it"? Sorry, Wow, you fail on both points.

1) "Love" within marriage is not the issue and never was; and I know, you made that point and that is why my argument changed. You said specifically: But that is not really the point of this thread, which is merely about whether the proposed Biblical argument FOR gay marriage holds water. and my argument is that it does not.

2) I do not buy the argument that Christians can break their own rules and still claim to be acting in accord with their faith AND cite the rule book to do it. how is a Christian breaking his own rule - Your argument is based on the idea that a Christian is breaking that rule by opposing gay marriage based on his Christianity is it not? My claim is that it is not.

Yes, but you still don't understand why.

And you are also still ignoring the point that the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature and therefore unconstitutional. If it makes it any easier for you, love has nothing to do with that, either.I agree, love has nothing to do with it. Now make up your mind, are we talking about a legal right to marry or not? If we are, then I argue that Christian love does NOT require recognition of the legal right to marry. If we are not talking about the legal right to marry, then what in the hell are we discussing? I know of no other type of marriage other than a legally sanctioned one.


Horseshit. What you're doing is arguing in favor of Christians ignoring their own rule book in regard to their own behavior while at the same time trying to apply it to other people's behavior.I'm not arguing in favor of it, I am arguing, that this can be the case. I'm not saying its good or bad, I'm saying its possible.

There's a word for that kind of thing. I believe it was a word Jesus Christ was quoted as using himself. It's "hypocrisy." Also not something the rule book says Christians should do, but I guess, according to your argument, they don't have to worry about that as long as there's a chance they'll get their way on something in the government.Ahh, so we are talking about the legal right to marry. and your point is that it is not possible to act as a Christian and oppose that legal right. My point is that yes it is possible.

Desirable? Maybe not. A good idea, not necessarily. Possible, yes.

EDIT: Also, fyi, your habit of using sex crimes and severe deviations as examples in a discussion about gay marriage is getting to be offensive. So far in this conversation, you have used examples of bestiality and rape to illustrate your points. Being gay is not a crime and it is not a perversion and it does not involve non-consensual behaviors. Cut it out, thanks.
I apologize, I tend to use exaggerated examples to illustrate a point. I did not mean to offend and I by no means intend to claim that it is a crime, mental aberration or involved non-consenting individuals. I will try to watch that. Again, no offense was intended and I am not implying that homosexuality = bestiality, rape, etc.

All that is true, but it does not justify Christians actively interfering with society's decisions about gay marriage (i.e. not rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) and claiming their Christianity as their justification for that interference -- especially as that interference has no effect but to harm people against whom they have no objection except a religiously motivated moral one.

It is that interference that, in my view, violates the Christian principle, as I understand it.
Ok, then let me ask, how are they interfering with society's decisions about gay marriage when they are part of the society and exercising the same right to influence government and law the same way anyone else is? If they are a part of a society, how can you claim they are interfering with society's decisions since they are part and parcel of the decision making process?

For example, in CA., Prop 8 passed by a majority vote that included many people that voted against it on religious grounds. Is it your contention that they should not have been allowed to vote because of their religious beliefs? Is it your claim that if they voted for prop 8 and a ban on gay marriage they were "interfering" with society. Or is it your contention that a vote for prop 8 was an "unchristian' thing to do?

EDIT: Crap, I have to go. I'll try and check back tomorrow for your reply. Again I apologize if I have offended you. I did not intend for that to happen. I was merely attempting to argue, possibly poorly, that Christian love does not require a christian to recognize gay marriages as "ok" and it is not unchristian to oppose them in the political arena. That's all, nothing more or less.

Ok, then let me ask, how are they interfering with society's decisions about gay marriage when they are part of the society and exercising the same right to influence government and law the same way anyone else is? If they are a part of a society, how can you claim they are interfering with society's decisions since they are part and parcel of the decision making process?

For example, in CA., Prop 8 passed by a majority vote that included many people that voted against it on religious grounds. Is it your contention that they should not have been allowed to vote because of their religious beliefs? Is it your claim that if they voted for prop 8 and a ban on gay marriage they were "interfering" with society. Or is it your contention that a vote for prop 8 was an "unchristian' thing to do?

EDIT: Crap, I have to go. I'll try and check back tomorrow for your reply. Again I apologize if I have offended you. I did not intend for that to happen. I was merely attempting to argue, possibly poorly, that Christian love does not require a christian to recognize gay marriages as "ok" and it is not unchristian to oppose them in the political arena. That's all, nothing more or less.
I have to go as well and will try to answer other your post tomorrow some time, but I want to make this one point:

The Bible supposedly tells Christians that they cannot serve two masters. They cannot serve both their god and "Mammon" -- i.e. money, materialism, the secular, materialistic world. The Bible also tell them to render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's. My understanding of that is that the secular and spiritual worlds are not mixed and should not be mixed. And as they are Christians, they are supposed to put their Christianity ahead of anything else.

By injecting their religious faith into secular politics in such a direct manner -- by which I mean a manner that has the effect of making their religion take the place of secular law -- they are mixing what should not be mixed.

The fact of the matter for all people of principle is that they cannot have everything in life. They must choose to sacrifice some things some times. In the case of Christians, they must choose whether they are going to follow the principles of living a Christian life in regards to being non-judgmental -- and if they do that, then they must sacrifice some aspects of their right to be politically active in a diverse nation -- or if they are going to sacrifice the principles of living a Christian life in favor of gaining political and social power, i.e. inserting their moral code into the law that controls what others can do.

They can't have it both ways. They can't strip people of their rights and thus cause harm to them and claim they "love" them as Christians, because that is hypocritical. They can't violate the injunction against judgmentalism and claim they're not (as you try to do here) by making up some convoluted legalistic claptrap about how they're not violating the "love thy neighbor" requirement because this particular instance of civil oppression is not based on "love." That is also hypocritical and boils down basically to "we're not failing to love them because we're not trying to love them."

It seems to me that the gay marriage fight is about nothing more or less than social and political power and who will claim the authority to make the rules for everyone else. Those Christians who actively engage in this debate against gay marriage and who specifically cite their religion as their motivation and their Bible as the basis of their argument and the laws they want to see enacted are saying, basically, "fuck you" to more people than just the gay community. And it strikes me, as I listen to what they say AND watch what they do, that they are freely violating the most fundamental tenets of their own religion in order to pursue this power in this particular way, even as they claim to be motivaged solely by that religion. I see nothing but hypocrisy in the entire thing.

This is why I say that I see merit in using the Bible to counter their Bible-based arguments. Maybe the specific argument posited in the OP is a good one, or maybe it isn't, but I'm sure it's not the only one that can be made. When it comes to battling with hypocrites, I say fight fire with fire, and if their own cited authority can be used against them, that's a good tactic.

EDIT: The only point on which I disagree with you is the part about whether it is technically unchristian to oppose gay marriage politically.

Also you have not offended me personally. The language I complained of is offensive in general. As to some of my other remarks, I believe in being honest, even if that honesty is not particularly friendly. The truth is I have no respect for the anti-gay-marriage stance, and therefore, very little respect for arguments that support it. I try to be polite, but I don't believe in lying about that -- and the way we were going, a lie by omission would be a lie.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I personally would never opt to make a Bible/Christianity-based argument in counter to a religious argument against gay marriage. That is because, as I am not a Christian, my preferred argument is the one that focuses on the Constitution and points out that the Bible is irrelevant both to the law and to me. The only reasons I am saying the things I'm saying in this thread at all are (1) to express the merit I see in having a Christian counter-argument to the Christian anti-gay-marriage argument, and (2) because I saw what I consider to be a glaring flaw in your argument, and I just can't resist attacking a weakness, like a cat on a catnip mouse.

Those do apply to same sex marriage, I would agree. My point is regarding the article itself which is claiming that biblically speaking same sex marriage should be allowed if a gay couple loves each other. I'm saying I don't buy that premise because I don't think love is the basis on which a marriage should be based. It should be based on the items you highlighted in my text. If a marriage is based on them, then "love" becomes irrelevant to the equation and the idea that the bible, via its definition of love, "requires' Christians to recognize gay marriage as valid becomes a fallacy.

In other words, since I believe love should have next to nothing to do with the decision to marry, I think the entire idea that the bibical requirement we love people means Christians must accept/acknowledge gay marriage is a non-starter. Love and marriage are not related and the article is premised on the fallacy that they are (IMO).

You have either misunderstood the OP article's argument or are deliberately mischaracterizing it.

It is not a simplistic "love=marriage, gays=love, therefor gays=marriage" argument.

Rather it is an argument that Christian values of love, family, and inclusion are further rather than hampered by same-sex marriage. (It is also an argument that the Bible doesn't cleary condemn same-sex marriage, but that is a different point.)

But you just argued that Christian love means they should not deny the legal right to marry to gays didn't you? If love has nothing to do with the granting or denial of legal rights then your argument is flawed. That is my point. It is possible to love in a christian manner and still deny a legal right. You are claiming the opposite.

true, and it is not up to me whether gays can marry or not. But a ban of them doing so has nothing to do with love. It is a legal and political decision and love is beside the point.

My point is that christian love has -0- to do with the granting of the legal right for gays to marry and it should have -0- to do with any denial of that right as well.
If a government grants a right to gays to marry, then Christians bound by the rule "render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" should respect and accept the marriage because the government has sanctioned it. That doesn't mean they can't actively work in a manner that seeks to have the law changed. It is possible for Christians to love homosexuals and still deny them the legal right to marry IMO. The article (and seemingly you) take the position that it is not possible to love in christian manner and deny this legal right. I say the article is incorrect in this regard.

I can love a serial rapist, that doesn't mean if given the choice to legalize rape I should do so. A Christian can love a homosexual in a Christian manner and still believe a denial of a legal right is in order.

1. On what basis can a Christian love a homosexual but believe in denying him or her the fundamental right to marriage and the right to equal protection under the law?

2. On a wide range of issues we are taught by Christian institutions that love (esp. God's love) requires certain policies towards reproduction, valuing life, inclusion, etc .... but just not when it comes to same-sex marriage?

3. Consider this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:

A religion true to its nature must...be concerned about man's social conditions. Religion deals with both earth and heaven, both time and eternity. Religion operates not only on the vertical plane but also on the horizontal. It seeks not only to integrate men with God but to integrate men with men and each man with himself. This means, at bottom, that the Christian gospel is a two-way road. On the one hand it seeks to change the souls of men, and thereby unite them with God; on the other hand it seeks to change the environmental conditions of men so that the soul will have a chance after it is changed. Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion. Such a religion is the kind that Marxists like to see - an opiate of the people.

By the way Muravyets, just so there is no misunderstanding, I could care less if gays get married or not. It makes no nevermind at all to me. If it came up for a vote in my state like Prop. 8 did in California, I'd probably just abstain from the vote because I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just arguing that I disagree with the article and its premise that Christian love requires recognition and acceptance of gay marriage. I don't think it does.

How sad.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
--Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
--John Donne

Fair enough, but we actually see no direct reference to Jonathan's nakedness in the text. There is not even any clear indication that Jonathan is getting naked in front of David.

What we see instead is the following progression:

"4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
The "girdle" ("loincloth" would be better for modern ears; "girdle" was not feminine-specific in King James' day) is what covers his peepee ("sword"?) and booty ("bow"?). If the Bible had just said, he stripped off all his clothes from his robe down to his loincloth, a Hebrew reader (accustomed to strong taboos against stripping naked) might well say, "Whoa, whoa! Does that mean what I think it means?" The bit "even to his sword and his bow" seems to say, "Yeah, you betcha, he stripped absolutely butt-naked."
The phrasing steers clear of any sexual euphemism: there is no direct reference to nakedness
I disagree: "strip" is a strong word here, particularly with the emphasis on how totally he strips.
Recall that Saul says, "As long as the son of Jesse lives." It is David's mere presence that is the fundamental threat, not David's relationship with Jonathan.
But in the "confusion" line, Saul says "You have chosen David to the confusion of your mother's nakedness." It is Jonathan's "choice" of David which "confuses nakedness", whatever that means; I agree it is difficult to interpret, without good parallels, but Jonathan's failure to procreate is an essential piece of the puzzle here.
I'd say it's not near the top of his worries.
I'd say it is RIGHT at the top of his worries. Why would he care only about passing the throne on, if he could, for one generation, if he knows it can't possibly pass on for two?
The references between David and Jonathan use the verb "ahav", which is not a sexual euphemism. We see it referenced with respect to the love parents have for their children, for instance.
It's not ch-s-d, which is a more purely platonic "to be devoted to" (would be used for a pious "love" of God, for example). To be sure, it is not d-w-d either: seldom used as a verb in Hebrew, but "to lust for" in related languages; root of dowd "sweetheart; lover", and also of Dawid, which I would render "Hottie" (in Mesopotamia, where attitudes towards homosexuality were often more relaxed, a homosexual king would be required to have a wife for procreating purposes but would also have a davidm). The root a-h-b is typically for love within the family: I don't know of it being used for a "friendship" no matter how intense. It is what would be used for a man "loving" his wife; but a loyal servant would ch-s-d his master.
Furthermore, there is a definite tradition in male-dominated cultures, persisting to this day, of strong social bonds between men that exclude women
Emphasis added. It would be unthinkable to compare such a buddy relationship to one's relationship with a woman: that would literally be fighting words.

I don't really give a damn about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
If they're gay, christian and want to marry eachother... so?
Two organic lifeforms that digest nutrition and happen to feel love want to feel a greater spiritual sense of bonding between them.

Really, the bible is contradicting itself alot when it comes to love.


This post was slightly unproductive.

Dante assigned a special circle of hell for the Neutrals, those who abstained or refused to take sides when decision was called for. They were condemned to follow a blank flag over shifting sands while being eaten alive by maggots and other bugs.

Sorry, but... NOT!
It is actually worse. The "ignavi" are refused by both heaven and hell.
Notice that between them are also the angels that didn't take a side in the war between God and Lucifer.

E io ch'avea d'error la testa cinta,
dissi: "Maestro, che è quel ch'i' odo?
e che gent'è che par nel duol sì vinta?".

Ed elli a me: "Questo misero modo
tegnon l'anime triste di coloro
che visser sanza 'nfamia e sanza lodo.

Mischiate sono a quel cattivo coro
de li angeli che non furon ribelli
né fur fedeli a Dio, ma per sé fuoro.

Caccianli i ciel per non esser men belli,
né lo profondo inferno li riceve,
ch'alcuna gloria i rei avrebber d'elli".

E io: "Maestro, che è tanto greve
a lor che lamentar li fa sì forte?".
Rispuose: "Dicerolti molto breve.

Questi non hanno speranza di morte,
e la lor cieca vita è tanto bassa,
che 'nvidïosi son d'ogne altra sorte.

Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa;
misericordia e giustizia li sdegna:

non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa".

And I, who had my head with horror bound,
Said: "Master, what is this which now I hear?
What folk is this, which seems by pain so vanquished?"

And he to me: "This miserable mode
Maintain the melancholy souls of those
Who lived withouten infamy or praise.

Commingled are they with that caitiff choir
Of Angels, who have not rebellious been,
Nor faithful were to God, but were for self.

The heavens expelled them, not to be less fair;
Nor them the nethermore abyss receives,
For glory none the damned would have from them."

And I: "O Master, what so grievous is
To these, that maketh them lament so sore?"
He answered: "I will tell thee very briefly.

These have no longer any hope of death;
And this blind life of theirs is so debased,
They envious are of every other fate.

No fame of them the world permits to be;
Misericord and Justice both disdain them.
Let us not speak of them, but look, and pass."

Sorry, but... NOT!
It is actually worse. The "ignavi" are refused by both heaven and hell.
Notice that between them are also the angels that didn't take a side in the war between God and Lucifer.

Serves me right for relying just on my own weak memory. Thanks. :)